[9:32] >>> good morning, everyone. It's
[9:33] january
[9:34] 22nd and we're starting our planning
[9:35] board
[9:37] meeting. The first item this morning
[9:38] is
[9:40] adoption of a resolutions. The first
[9:41] three
[9:43] all can vote on
[9:46] except commissioner hedrick and those
[9:47] three
[9:49] are willgis to north
[9:52] park site plan, preliminary plan and
[9:55] forest conservation plan, these are
[9:56] all
[9:57] resolutions. Do I have a motion for
[9:58] approval.
[9:59] >> I move to approve these
[10:00] resolutions.
[10:07] >> all in favor. >> yea. >> yea.
[10:10] >> yeas have it
[10:13] 4-0-1. I want to
[10:15] mention commissioner linden is virtual.
[10:16] the
[10:18] next is approval of minutes. All commissioners
[10:19] can vote.
[10:21] three this morning, the minutes of
[10:22] january 8th,
[10:25] the minutes of january 15th and the
[10:26] closed session minutes
[10:27] of january 15th. Do I have a motion
[10:31] for approval of these three
[10:34] board minutes?
[10:35] >> move to approve
[10:37] the minutes.
[10:38] >> I second. >> all in
[10:39] favor yea.
[10:40] >> yeas have it 5-0. Next other
[10:43] preliminary matters. This
[10:46] is the
[10:49] mpf --montgomery
[10:51] parks foundation board new nominee
[10:52] brooks hanson,
[10:55] staff is recommending approval of
[10:56] mr.
[10:59] hanson's addition to the board.
[11:01] do I have a motion for approval.
[11:02] >>
[11:03] I move
[11:05] to approve.
[11:06] >>
[11:07] I second.
[11:08] >> all in favor. >> yea.
[11:09] >> yea.
[11:11] >> yeas have it 5-0.
[11:12] the next we have three record plats this
[11:14] morning. Where staff
[11:16] is recommending all three to be approved.
[11:20] the first subdivision plat
[11:23] 2-2025-90 bradley hill
[11:26] section hill. Second plat number
[11:29] 2-2026-0330, section
[11:31] 3 chevy chase and the last subdivision
[11:32] plat
[11:37] 2-2026-0450 stratmore view. Do I have
[11:38] approval
[11:40] of these three plats.
[11:41] >> move to approve
[11:42] the
[11:43] record plats.
[11:44] >> second. >> all in
[11:45] favor.
[11:46] >> yea. >> yea. >>
[11:47] the yeas have it. 5-0. The
[11:50] next we have our roundtable
[11:52] discussion with parks director. Welcome.
[11:56] director?
[11:57] >> good morning. Thank
[11:58] you. So for today's park's director
[11:59] roundtable we
[12:02] are going to do a little
[12:04] bit of a athleticathletic field program
[12:08] overview. It's one of
[12:11] our recurring
[12:14] occasional roundtable
[12:17] takeovers. So
[12:20] I'm going hand this over to our
[12:21] athletic field program manager so they
[12:23] can give
[12:25] you an overview.
[12:26] >> good morning.
[12:28] >> good morning. >> for the record
[12:29] matt folden
[12:32] park implementation planning. Pleased to
[12:33] be
[12:34] here this morning to share information
[12:35] about our athletic field system and
[12:36] just
[12:38] the overall impressive
[12:41] size, variety
[12:44] and quality of the system. I had
[12:45] the privilege this morning of being
[12:47] here with mr. Carl weber and this
[12:49] is his first presentation to the planning
[12:50] board. Carl has over
[12:53] 22 years of experience in
[12:54] turf management including 13 years
[12:55] with montgomery parks. The first ten
[12:56] years of his
[12:59] service at parks were spent in
[13:00] operations where he was responsible for
[13:01] the specialized care and management
[13:02] of
[13:05] our athletic fields and for the last
[13:07] three years he's been on the additive
[13:08] side of
[13:09] the department focused on the strategies
[13:11] and policies associated with athletic
[13:12] fields.
[13:14] carl has a degree in crop and soil
[13:15] environmental
[13:17] science with a focus in turf
[13:19] management from virginia tech and
[13:20] in his spare
[13:22] time he's a youth soccer coach. He's
[13:23] truly
[13:26] an expert on all sides related
[13:29] to athletic fields. Actually, sorry [ inaudible
[13:31] ]. Thank you. The purpose of the presentation
[13:32] this morning is just to
[13:34] familiarize the board with our athletic
[13:35] field system ahead of
[13:37] the upcoming discussion on the athletic
[13:38] field
[13:41] use policy on february
[13:42] 5 and during the discussion we'll
[13:44] provide an overview on
[13:47] how exceptional our park and
[13:49] athletic field system is and touch on
[13:50] the capacity
[13:52] issues we face with the athletic field
[13:55] and conclude withwith questions and
[13:56] discussion. As we get started
[13:59] here I want to emphasize the
[14:01] importance of the 2022 plan and with regard
[14:02] to athletic
[14:04] fields, pros direct staff to support
[14:05] physical
[14:07] activity by providing a variety of
[14:08] athletic fields that
[14:11] feel welcoming for all.
[14:14] athletic fields fulfill two of three
[14:15] themes
[14:17] of pros which include physical activity and
[14:18] social connectivity
[14:19] and with that it's my pleasure to
[14:20] turn it over to carl.
[14:23] >> for
[14:26] the record my name is carl
[14:28] webber, for montgomery parks and our
[14:29] planning
[14:32] and stewardship division. Today I'm
[14:33] representing a
[14:34] large staff that work on athletic
[14:35] fields in montgomery parks
[14:37] anywhere from cutting the grass to
[14:38] planning new
[14:40] athletic fields. We have two operations divisions
[14:41] that do all of
[14:43] our general maintenance operations
[14:44] on our fields
[14:46] and we have an in-house athletic field
[14:47] renovation team. We have
[14:49] a park development division that does all
[14:50] of our
[14:53] athletic field construction, park
[14:56] project managers, construction
[14:59] managers and inspectors. Permit office
[15:00] that works
[15:02] on per milting our athletic
[15:04] fields and work with our youth groups
[15:05] and support staff our
[15:08] gis and data team help us a lot with
[15:11] our planning of
[15:14] athletic fields. How do we invest
[15:16] all this staff into athletic fields.
[15:17] because we're trying to achieve
[15:20] our mission of providing areas for
[15:23] physical activity and social connectivity
[15:26] to our communities. We all
[15:28] know the benefits of physical activity you
[15:29] have better physical
[15:31] health, better mental health, and
[15:33] it's
[15:35] with students proven to be better
[15:36] for
[15:39] academic achievement.
[15:40] getting social skills for our communities
[15:42] at an
[15:43] age where everybody is glued to screens
[15:45] it's great to get
[15:47] outout socialize with your friends
[15:48] and other community members.
[15:53] . We track our trends so team sports
[15:57] have increased by 2. 5% last
[16:00] year to and all time
[16:02] high, so team sports are growing and
[16:03] we have to
[16:06] be cognizant of that and provide
[16:08] that opportunity four our communities.
[16:10] I'm going to talk about our system
[16:12] and thank jane our
[16:14] research and data planner for these
[16:15] maps
[16:17] you'll see today but we have 312 athletic
[16:19] fields throughout our system and we
[16:21] offer a wide range of fields.
[16:24] we have a lot of
[16:26] rectangle, softball a lot of baseball
[16:27] fields and we have eight
[16:28] cricket fields in our community, too.
[16:30] if you look
[16:32] at the map a lot of our field are
[16:33] down county
[16:36] and east county along
[16:39] the 270 corridor.
[16:42] we don't have anything in the
[16:44] municipalities. Of those 312 fields we
[16:45] have
[16:47] some fields what we call overlay fields
[16:48] at 35
[16:49] sites. It's where when we were planning
[16:51] we didn't have enough room
[16:54] or we wanted to save some space
[16:57] and, you know, kind of have one
[17:00] area share space
[17:03] with --so we have two fields that
[17:05] share a space. In this diagram you
[17:06] can see you can
[17:09] play softball or soccer.
[17:12] so although we have 312 fields and
[17:13] only
[17:14] have one time only 279 can be permanent at one time.
[17:20] . We're going to be talk about capacity
[17:21] throughout
[17:24] this presentation and one way we can
[17:25] increase capacity is through lighting
[17:27] the fields. You can see
[17:30] them with the
[17:33] yellow indication. We are installing lights
[17:36] at damascus and we will be adding
[17:38] to more. We have, you know, we have
[17:39] 28
[17:42] fields we can permit after it
[17:44] goes. That's an important feature once
[17:45] it goes and especially in
[17:48] the fall we
[17:51] only have 28 opportunities for
[17:54] outdoor athletics. We have
[17:55] 27 irrigated fields. This helps with
[17:57] our maintenance. It
[17:59] helps with regrowing of the grass.
[18:00] it's
[18:03] very beneficial for the
[18:06] quality of our fields.
[18:09] so we divide our fields
[18:12] up into different
[18:15] classifications. We have any classifications.
[18:18] we have our practice game field, game-only
[18:21] fields and synthetic turf fields.
[18:23] practice game fields are our most
[18:24] abundant fields
[18:27] and typically in our local parks.
[18:29] they are lower end maintenance because we
[18:30] have so many of
[18:33] them. You can permit
[18:36] them for practices or games. They can
[18:39] be used with aa or walk on
[18:42] and use them. They are our most economical
[18:45] field at $10 an hour.
[18:48] our game-only fields
[18:49] receive a higher end maintenance,
[18:51] they're typically in a
[18:54] regional recreational parks, they're
[18:57] for game only and they do require
[19:00] permit to use. They're
[19:02] typically fenced and they are slightly
[19:03] more expensive
[19:06] at $20 an hour.
[19:12] then we have our
[19:15] year-round synthetic
[19:18] turf fields.
[19:20] grooming, texting. You can permit them
[19:21] for practices
[19:24] ar games. They require permits. All
[19:26] of our synthetic turf fields are lighted.
[19:27] and they
[19:28] are more expensive at $110 an hour.
[19:36] >> I will talk more about our
[19:37] maintenance standards and what we
[19:39] try to achieve every
[19:41] year with our maintenance staff. So we
[19:42] have a high maintenance
[19:45] standard that we try to achieve, and this
[19:46] is a
[19:48] big undertaking for
[19:54] 312 fields.
[19:56] we sometimes have trouble reaching
[19:57] this undertaking because of
[19:59] weather and staffing issues but these
[20:00] are high
[20:02] expectations we set for ourselves.
[20:06] as you can see our game only fields
[20:07] get
[20:09] higher maintenance
[20:11] than our practice only fields with
[20:12] mowing and field
[20:15] maintenance and lighting. We do cultural
[20:17] practices with aeration which helps
[20:18] water and
[20:21] air get to the root system.
[20:23] overseeding which helps with turf
[20:24] density.
[20:26] nutrient management that help feed
[20:27] the plants so they can recover from wear and tear and
[20:28] grow better.
[20:40] they get
[20:43] a lot of use. We
[20:44] had in 2024 over 134,000 hours of
[20:46] permits.
[20:49] that's averaging over two
[20:52] hours of field per day over our
[20:53] nine-month season that's a lot of
[20:55] hours.
[20:58] we're averaging
[21:00] 431 hours across all of our fields.
[21:03] our practice game fields get 400 hours of
[21:04] use
[21:05] of permits. Game-only fields with
[21:07] lights are
[21:10] averaging close to 500. When we
[21:13] add lights to our game-only
[21:15] fields that increases close to 900
[21:16] hours. Our
[21:19] year-
[21:22] round synthetic turf fields get
[21:24] 00 hours of permit play. One thing
[21:25] we
[21:28] don't capture is walk on
[21:29] play which are practice game fields you
[21:31] see and we've done
[21:33] camera studies that say there is a
[21:36] substantial amount of walk on play on
[21:37] our fields. Even
[21:39] though her on the end of permitting
[21:40] hours
[21:41] they support walk on play which is
[21:43] a
[21:45] contributor to our communities. We
[21:46] also
[21:48] have a lot of users. Here's a small sampling
[21:49] of
[21:52] our users. We have a lot
[21:55] of government
[21:57] agencies which isis county recreation
[22:00] which we work with. We have montgomery
[22:01] county public schools
[22:03] and large organizations and small
[22:04] organizations that
[22:06] provide recreation to our community.
[22:07] we have a lot
[22:10] of long established leagues and a lot
[22:13] of start-up leagues.
[22:16] in 2024 we had
[22:19] over 700 accounts permit
[22:22] times with us. From individuals to
[22:23] groups.
[22:24] third-party stakeholders involved
[22:25] in sports in
[22:27] the county. Montgomery county established
[22:28] the
[22:30] sports advisory committee over two
[22:31] years ago and they
[22:34] are very involved in trying
[22:36] to create better opportunities for
[22:37] youth
[22:39] sports in the county. They're made up
[22:40] of a
[22:42] diverse group of 17 members and we've
[22:43] been working
[22:46] with them for the past
[22:47] two years and we look forward to continuing
[22:49] contributions with them.
[22:58] as we're going towards the latter part
[22:59] of
[23:00] this presentation I do want to talk about
[23:01] what keeps me up
[23:04] at night, what are our
[23:05] problems, what areas do we think we
[23:07] can improve on. One
[23:10] thing I think about a lot is
[23:13] our capacity. And how many hours a
[23:14] field
[23:16] can handle.
[23:18] and I think this is two different
[23:19] thoughts because I think diamond fields
[23:21] are different than rectangle fields
[23:22] and we're going
[23:25] to talk about capacity and
[23:28] wear patterns
[23:30] kind of one in the same and if you
[23:31] look at a diamond field you
[23:34] can see the diagram on the
[23:37] left most of the players are on
[23:40] the dirt and, you know, there's not
[23:41] a lot
[23:42] of wear in the satellite photo because
[23:43] a lot of the play is on
[23:45] the dirt. If you mess up the dirt
[23:46] with a proper machine
[23:48] in a couple hours you can fix it.
[23:49] you can see
[23:50] the wear pattern on the satellite
[23:52] image and see a little bit of
[23:54] wear out in front of the dugout, a little
[23:55] bit of wear from the
[23:58] pitcher's mound to
[24:01] home plate,
[24:04] occasionally you'll get wear in
[24:07] the outfield where the
[24:09] outfielders stand. You can see all
[24:13] 22 players are on the field.
[24:15] this is true for soccer, football,
[24:16] lacrosse. You
[24:19] can see there's major
[24:22] wear problems in the center. And we're
[24:23] starting
[24:24] to see this more and more throughout.
[24:25] our communities
[24:28] our fields are used more often.
[24:34] we've had some failures and, you know,
[24:37] we've renovated
[24:40] some fields. What we call love to
[24:41] death.
[24:42] it's because we have these fields
[24:43] and
[24:46] this highly densely communities and
[24:47] everybody flocks
[24:49] to them when we open them and they're
[24:52] just used an awful lot.
[24:55] so we're studying this because
[24:57] we want to improve and we know we
[24:58] can't have this.
[25:01] this is not what we're striving towards.
[25:02] we're throwing out
[25:04] some new ideas and trying some new
[25:05] things and
[25:06] we're resting some of our game only
[25:07] fields during the
[25:10] week to help let them recover.
[25:13] we're extending our establishment
[25:14] period longer
[25:16] so that maybe the grass has better
[25:17] time to establish and
[25:20] really handle the wear.
[25:21] and then we're also looking at new products and technologies to
[25:23] better manage our grass.
[25:29] this brings us
[25:30] to basically our major case study
[25:32] which is
[25:34] hillendale. This is a state-of-the-
[25:35] art field natural
[25:37] grass field. We built this with drainage.
[25:40] irrigation. It's got bermuda grass.
[25:41] it's
[25:44] got a sand-based system. This
[25:47] field was opened in
[25:50] 2024. And that first year got
[25:53] over 900 hours of permitted
[25:56] use. So at the
[25:59] end of 2024, we
[26:00] determined the field needed to be
[26:02] renovated.
[26:03] renovated it southern region in the
[26:05] spring and summer of 2025,
[26:08] the picture on the left is the
[26:11] renvated field. We've been monitoring
[26:13] it because we want to know what's
[26:14] going on
[26:15] and you can see the picture on the
[26:17] right
[26:19] november at the end of the season.
[26:20] it was
[26:23] open for 79 days. It got
[26:25] 370 hours of permitted play. That's
[26:26] averaging
[26:29] about 4. 7 hours
[26:31] of permitted play a day. We did a
[26:32] camera study during that
[26:33] time. It was getting an additional
[26:35] two hours of walk-on play.
[26:37] this field was getting close to seven
[26:38] hours of
[26:41] play a day. These natural grass fields
[26:42] are
[26:43] living systems, right, so they're
[26:44] just being worn down.
[26:47] this
[26:50] one's holding up wellwell and holding
[26:53] up well because we're going above our
[26:54] maintenance standards. We're invested
[26:56] in this field going above our game
[26:59] level field even though this is a practice
[27:00] game field. We're committed to this
[27:02] field but it's just
[27:04] showing a lot of wear. It's great
[27:05] to
[27:08] track it and we're looking forward to opening it in
[27:11] the spring and seeing what it looks
[27:13] like and how it held up. It's amazing how much play our
[27:14] fields get.
[27:20] that really brings us to
[27:23] a conclusion here is that
[27:26] although 98% of our
[27:28] residents are within a 20-minute drive
[27:29] of an athletic field how
[27:30] many people are competing for that
[27:32] field at one time. This is
[27:35] a population map and you can
[27:38] see there's some heat centers of
[27:41] highly dense populated areas and there's
[27:42] a lot
[27:43] of competition for our fields because
[27:44] there's
[27:47] a lot of competition for
[27:50] any space in these parts.
[27:53] so, you know, this
[27:55] is where we struggle. So this is why
[27:56] it's important in the next couple
[27:59] weeks, february 5th we're going to
[28:00] come
[28:02] with you for an athletic permit policy
[28:03] as we bring to
[28:05] you a new policy to help permit our
[28:07] fields and we're looking to bring a donation
[28:08] policy later on in 2026.
[28:17] that's all I have. For
[28:19] questions and thank you for your time.
[28:20] >> mr. Weber did
[28:23] a great job. Thank you.
[28:26] it's very
[28:29] informative to
[28:32] know how many we have and the
[28:35] challenges of maintaining them and
[28:36] the
[28:38] demand for them. We look
[28:41] forward to your policy that's coming
[28:42] up and just one quick
[28:44] question. Do you have a
[28:47] sense of over the next few
[28:50] years how many fields
[28:53] will likely come on board that would
[28:56] add onto the
[28:58] 312 that you have today?
[28:59] >> a total
[29:00] number but
[29:01] we're looking at a couple projects
[29:02] to add at least a couple more
[29:05] fields.
[29:06] >> great. Thank you. Do we
[29:07] have any questions or
[29:08] comments from the other board?
[29:09] >> I have a comment.
[29:12] >>
[29:14] so, thank you very much. I know for
[29:15] fact that --and
[29:18] I learned it
[29:20] actually, that turf is a science and
[29:24] it takes a lot to put to
[29:27] have a good turf during the
[29:28] construction. That was one of our
[29:30] biggest
[29:33] challenges to get turf.
[29:36] one thing that I think it would
[29:37] be interesting for the board members what
[29:39] is the
[29:42] cost? It's not
[29:45] cheap. The cost of
[29:48] the maintenance and also
[29:50] construction of these fields. You
[29:51] know,
[29:54] you just showed one
[29:56] example that you renovate how much
[29:57] it
[30:00] take, the cost and time,
[30:03] to
[30:05] renovate, and, you know, within a
[30:06] season it
[30:09] could go down. I totally
[30:11] understand and that's why I believe
[30:12] that we
[30:14] need someone with very expert eyes
[30:15] to
[30:18] see that what
[30:19] are the best practices and maintenance and
[30:21] operation
[30:24] to , you
[30:27] know, get these investments to
[30:30] go a little bit longer. It
[30:33] was really eye opening and
[30:36] interesting to know it's purely a
[30:39] science. It's very difficult
[30:41] and extremely difficult and there
[30:42] are
[30:44] so many variables not even on our
[30:45] hand
[30:48] and I know one of your biggest
[30:50] variables are the walkers and users
[30:51] that we
[30:53] are not tracking. So we really appreciate you
[30:54] for
[30:56] you bringing here. It was so nice
[30:57] to
[30:59] see you with a different hat back
[31:03] in here and we miss you on
[31:06] the other side, but I
[31:08] think that you are in the right place, and
[31:09] I'm sure it would
[31:12] be very rewarding that you have.
[31:14] if you have some ideas about the costs
[31:15] if you
[31:17] could share some information for us.
[31:18] >>
[31:20] yeah. I don't have that off the top
[31:21] of
[31:24] my head, but it
[31:25] definitely varies a lot depending
[31:27] on what level quality of field you
[31:28] want
[31:29] to build. I think we spend about a
[31:30] million dollars to build the
[31:33] field at hillendale and then
[31:36] also maintenance varies greatly
[31:38] too. I would say easily --
[31:39] >> well,
[31:40] if I may, I
[31:42] want to add to
[31:43] that, as carl just pointed out I think it
[31:45] was upwards of a million dollars
[31:48] to renovate that field at hillen dale,
[31:49] a
[31:51] local park field,
[31:53] and it was destroyed within the year.
[31:54] we are
[31:55] making every effort to bring the field
[31:57] back and as carl said, we
[32:00] are investing a lot to
[32:03] maintain that field. It is a science
[32:04] and we put a lot of resources into
[32:06] this, but I think a point that needs to
[32:07] be
[32:08] made and want to emphasize to the
[32:09] board is
[32:10] that there is only so much you can do
[32:15] with . Maintenance of a field. Past
[32:17] a certain point a field cannot take
[32:18] the level of play
[32:20] it's getting. We have the permitted
[32:21] time, but
[32:24] we also have the walk-on time on local
[32:26] park fields. We don't want to restrict
[32:27] people from
[32:30] coming on and using the field, but we
[32:31] have
[32:33] to recognize there is no amount of
[32:35] money we could throw at this that
[32:36] would solve the problem of
[32:39] just not having
[32:42] the capacity that we need.
[32:45] >> exactly.
[32:48] and I totally understand it is a
[32:50] living element in the park and it
[32:54] needs time to breathe. And I do
[32:55] not know if we have done any kind
[32:57] of a study to see --
[33:00] $1 million is a lot of investment
[33:03] and in one playing season it
[33:06] goes, and we are
[33:09] not collecting permit fees to
[33:12] even cover a small percentage of this
[33:13] cost
[33:15] so that is a pressure
[33:18] to the operating budget
[33:21] for parks so I
[33:24] do not know what is
[33:26] the on mum time for our parks how
[33:27] many fields we
[33:30] need to have or other ways
[33:33] that we could --I do not know if we
[33:34] have done
[33:36] that. Is it we have to double our
[33:37] capacity
[33:39] or number of fields?
[33:42] because we cannot keep just increasing
[33:43] the
[33:45] usage because nothing is left.
[33:46] >> that's
[33:48] correct. We're going to have to look
[33:49] at
[33:51] ways to increase the capacity on the
[33:52] fields that we
[33:54] currently have. We are trying to add
[33:55] more
[33:56] fields. Sometimes it's part of development
[33:57] projects.
[34:00] we might get a field, there
[34:02] might be some other opportunities
[34:03] to build new fields, but, you
[34:07] know, there's only so much space
[34:08] in montgomery county and it's in demand
[34:10] for a lot of other uses as
[34:12] you well know. We have to be, I think,
[34:15] creative in making the best use of
[34:18] what we have and then also just, you
[34:19] know,
[34:22] be willing, as a parks
[34:25] department,
[34:27] policymakers, council members, the community
[34:28] to understand there are
[34:30] tradeoffs and there's only so much
[34:31] that we
[34:34] can
[34:37] do with what we have.
[34:38] >> actually, commission pedoeem covered
[34:40] a couple things I
[34:41] was going to ask about particularly
[34:43] on --what is our upper
[34:46] range of usage for fields like that?
[34:48] I mean, I think you pointed out no
[34:49] matter how
[34:50] much money we throw at it we can't
[34:52] adjust
[34:54] for that. What's the upper range for
[34:58] those fields? Was
[35:00] hillendale, I remember when it opened
[35:01] and got a lot of
[35:04] use. Is that typically
[35:06] for a newly opened field? Is there
[35:09] ways we can address the issue there
[35:11] with maintenance of like increasing
[35:13] use or synthetics at
[35:14] the beginning of fields getting high
[35:16] levels of traffic?
[35:18] do we have some options along sort of
[35:19] those lines?
[35:22] >> I'm
[35:25] going to let carl address
[35:26] the question. We have looked at how
[35:28] much play our fields are
[35:30] getting versus what they can tolerate
[35:31] and
[35:33] those numbers are starting and sobering when
[35:37] you see
[35:40] them. So I'll let
[35:43] them address that. We have
[35:45] four artificial turf fields in our
[35:46] system out of those fields
[35:48] you saw. We're committed to grass fields
[35:49] but they are
[35:51] an important tool. They can take much
[35:52] more play
[35:54] and expand our capacity.
[35:55] >> that's what I
[35:56] was
[35:58] curious in certain areas.
[35:59] >> we're
[36:00] driving deep and when I say how many
[36:01] hours can
[36:04] a field handle. Right now we have rough numbers.
[36:05] we
[36:06] think a practice game field can handle
[36:07] aboutabout 600
[36:09] hours of permitted play before it
[36:10] starts to deteriorate
[36:12] and a game only field because it's
[36:13] controlled and no walk on
[36:15] play we think about 800 hours. That's
[36:16] based
[36:18] on our experience with our current
[36:19] fields. We
[36:22] have latonia has two
[36:24] game only fields rectangles natural
[36:25] grass that are showing
[36:28] wear. They are getting about 8
[36:30] hundred hours. So those fields we've kind of
[36:31] started to rest
[36:33] one or two days a week to kind of
[36:34] see if they can recover a little
[36:37] bit.
[36:38] >> yeah.
[36:39] is that something that -- that was another
[36:40] choice I was going
[36:43] to ask, rotating fields like a
[36:45] wednesday night off or what's the --
[36:46] what are some options
[36:49] for extending
[36:51] the life of those fields?
[36:52] >> we're
[36:53] starting to do that
[36:54] a little bit in our game only fields
[36:55] but it
[36:58] does reduce our capacity. It's a
[37:01] give and take. You know, like I said in
[37:02] the
[37:04] fields we can contain or control,
[37:06] we're testing it out, but we're not
[37:07] looking to do that
[37:08] in our practice fields. They're for
[37:10] the community and, you know, that's
[37:13] how we're going for it.
[37:16] >> okay. >> thank you for the presentation.
[37:19] as, you know, I love parks as I
[37:20] appreciate the effort and time you put
[37:22] in to
[37:25] help maintenance the 12 athletic fields
[37:26] our community
[37:28] uses. Sports is a great bridge
[37:31] in connection amongst our
[37:34] residents and it's interesting that
[37:36] parks fuels the economy because people
[37:37] who play sports
[37:40] buy merchandise, right, and so
[37:43] it's great that we provide this opportunity
[37:46] and synergy for commerce. I particularly
[37:47] was
[37:49] interested in your slide
[37:51] 17, 18 with regards to the fields.
[37:52] I was going to bring that
[37:54] up the wear and tear on the fields.
[37:55] another field
[37:58] I'm interested in, it's on lay
[38:00] hill road at the intersection of route
[38:01] 200. I don't know the
[38:04] name of the park but
[38:07] it's also a soccer football field.
[38:10] it used to be a soccer and football
[38:11] field
[38:12] but you have taken down the goal posts
[38:13] there. Right on
[38:16] the intersection
[38:19] of 200 and lay hill road.
[38:20] >> I think
[38:21] that's lay hill
[38:22] local park.
[38:23] >> that park had a wear
[38:24] and
[38:25] tear issue also with the soccer fields
[38:26] and
[38:28] you guys closing it down for
[38:30] long extended period of time and getting
[38:31] it back up. I was going to bring
[38:34] up the hillendale wear
[38:36] and tear issue because I drive past
[38:37] there going to visit the university
[38:40] of maryland and it's always
[38:43] packed on the weekends. It's packed.
[38:46] for flag
[38:49] football, soccer and other sports.
[38:52] I was wondering if there
[38:55] have been ideas with regards to shoe
[38:58] usage like what kind of cleats they
[38:59] could wear on the
[39:02] turf, whether or not there's
[39:05] overseeding on the turf and then
[39:08] former councilmember
[39:10] gabe albenas now the director of the
[39:11] park recreation is
[39:14] a big advocate for turf fields and
[39:17] I appreciate all grass
[39:18] fields because I think there is a
[39:20] safety benefit for
[39:23] using grass
[39:25] fields as opposed to turf fields.
[39:26] I was wondering
[39:29] if there is a cost difference
[39:31] between turf fields and grass fields
[39:32] and/or
[39:35] is it negligible or is it more
[39:38] expensive to maintenance
[39:41] turf than it is grass and if it's
[39:44] less expensive to have one over
[39:46] the other? How do you come about making
[39:47] that
[39:50] choice, whether or not to use turf or
[39:52] grass? Because I note that to rent
[39:53] a
[39:56] turf field it's more expensive
[39:59] than renting a grass field
[40:02] and I was wondering how we --
[40:05] how you balance that? I
[40:06] played football at the university of maryland
[40:08] and we used to
[40:11] have the best grass ever in the
[40:13] acc at the time was the best and the
[40:14] person who
[40:16] managed it retired and the people
[40:19] who took over couldn't manage it and
[40:20] the grass
[40:23] died and put in
[40:25] turf. If you can like dive into why
[40:26] we
[40:28] continue to maintain grass rather
[40:29] than transition to
[40:31] turf? I would be really interested
[40:32] in that?
[40:34] >> that's a lot of questions. I'm going
[40:35] to try to answer --
[40:38] >> I could just go on and
[40:40] on because I love sports and grass.
[40:41] >>
[40:44] yeah. So we do seed all of our
[40:45] natural grass fields and then you
[40:47] asked a question about cleats
[40:49] for natural grass fields and we don't
[40:50] regulate
[40:53] what cleats you can wear. We are a
[40:55] natural grass system. We have 308
[40:56] natural grass fields
[40:59] and we have four synthetic turf fields.
[41:02] you know, but synthetic turf fields
[41:04] are a tool in the toolbox and in the
[41:05] right locations they
[41:08] sometimes make the right sense. I don't
[41:11] have all the data on costs and all
[41:12] that.
[41:13] we can come back and have a conversation
[41:14] about --
[41:15] >> I
[41:16] think in general? I think the rule
[41:17] of thumb
[41:19] is an artificial turf field maybe
[41:22] more expensive to install but less
[41:23] to maintenance. It's
[41:25] really just a question of how much
[41:29] capacity you're trying to provide.
[41:32] they can give
[41:35] you more playing time.
[41:37] >> that's something to add. >> so
[41:38] just
[41:40] some follow-up, why in the high use fields that are
[41:44] experiencing
[41:50] through over use why have
[41:53] we not decided to go
[41:56] turf instead of
[41:59] grass?
[42:01] >> can I just say something about
[42:02] that?
[42:03] >> you may. >>
[42:05] this topic has been
[42:08] a topic of
[42:11] discussion with parks for
[42:14] years and it --I
[42:17] was involved a lot
[42:20] of studies and research has been done.
[42:23] it's a very
[42:26] controversial
[42:29] topic because there are a lot
[42:32] of literature out there in regards
[42:35] to pros and cons
[42:38] and it was very
[42:41] controversial and, you know, parks
[42:44] department had a plan for
[42:47] replacing exactly what
[42:50] you're saying, but because
[42:52] of all these issues at that time it
[42:53] was
[42:55] eventually, you know, it was a lot
[42:56] of ideas
[42:59] and, you know, decision that
[43:02] eventually it went to the
[43:05] county council and, you
[43:08] know, parks department committed to
[43:11] work and increase the life for
[43:14] turf and not --
[43:17] for the natural grass and
[43:20] not to continue going to regionally
[43:21] that it was I
[43:23] think in
[43:25] 1990s or so on how many turf they
[43:26] had
[43:30] a number of turf
[43:33] that parks department planned to
[43:36] do it so they shy
[43:37] away from that plan. It was discussed.
[43:41] it went to the public. It went to
[43:45] the county council
[43:48] and it was decided that that's how
[43:51] we're we're going to proceed. I
[43:54] believe the decision
[43:56] at that time we're going to expand
[43:57] that's why carl
[43:58] is here we're going to expand and
[44:00] have
[44:03] many experts to come to
[44:06] do parks department to help
[44:09] to build better grass that
[44:12] could be maintenanced
[44:15] with longer lifetime. That is a
[44:16] challenge and everybody else knows.
[44:18] that's
[44:21] where we are right now and I
[44:23] know that -- you want to add something
[44:25] else to it you could because we're
[44:27] all involved in those.
[44:28] >> yes. We've spent many millions
[44:30] of dollars over, I would say,
[44:33] the last ten years or
[44:36] so, investing in
[44:37] natural grass fields, in maintaining
[44:39] them, establishing
[44:40] a state-of-the-art practice for maintenance
[44:42] of these
[44:44] fields and I think what we've found
[44:45] is there
[44:47] is ultimately a limit. We are bumping
[44:48] up
[44:51] against it.
[44:52] there is only so much you can do with
[44:53] maintenance of a natural grass field.
[44:54] at
[44:57] some point you cannot have a
[45:00] beautiful grass field that
[45:02] gets unlimited play, and that's coming
[45:03] something we're going to have
[45:05] to confront and have more conversations
[45:06] about.
[45:07] >>
[45:09] so we need to move on
[45:12] here, but let in ask commissioner
[45:14] linden, do you have any questions
[45:15] or comments?
[45:16] >>
[45:18] no, no other questions. Really interesting
[45:19] conversation
[45:21] about the synthetic versus the natural.
[45:23] sounds like it's been going on for
[45:24] a long
[45:27] time. Yeah, it seems like maybe
[45:30] at some point it's worth kind
[45:33] of re-exam blaring
[45:35] baby steps with the capacity you're talking
[45:36] about.
[45:37] this was a great presentation and
[45:39] I appreciate learning
[45:41] how we maintain the grass and how
[45:42] the whole system
[45:43] works. Thank you so much.
[45:44] >> great.
[45:45] we look
[45:48] forward to your presentation on the
[45:51] [ inaudible ]
[45:54] for fees. It's one of the things
[45:55] I'm eager to do is, you know, I'm
[45:57] sure you have
[45:59] the numbers about like sort of how
[46:00] much do
[46:03] you spend a year on maintenance of
[46:04] like
[46:06] a grass field versus a
[46:09] maybe a
[46:12] synthetic field? I know that
[46:15] in general whatever you
[46:17] recommend the fees will never cover
[46:18] the cost but it
[46:21] will be good to show for us or the
[46:22] council, however --regardless they
[46:24] need to
[46:27] be subsidized and it's a cost
[46:30] that we want to provide
[46:32] these fields for the reasons you mentioned
[46:33] and there's a
[46:36] cost. You can never charge the --
[46:39] probably to --
[46:40] the full cost of the maintenance,
[46:42] but you need to charge something
[46:45] and here's the
[46:48] gap and this is
[46:51] what we --part of our operating
[46:53] cost we're asking a budget for to
[46:54] pay for things like that.
[46:57] I appreciate that. My daughters grew
[47:00] up in
[47:03] tacoma rec league soccer and
[47:06] msi when they were four doing the
[47:09] soccer probably picking your
[47:12] grass as they start out they're grass
[47:13] pickers and
[47:15] then they really get into it. Thank
[47:16] you so
[47:17] much and we look forward to you coming
[47:18] back and great
[47:19] presentation. Thank you.
[47:20] >> thank
[47:21] you very much.
[47:22] >> we're going to take
[47:24] a --are we going to go in the
[47:26] same hall or --we'll take a one minute
[47:27] break and go
[47:29] with our next item the north branch trail funding
[47:30] approval. Thank you.
[53:35] .
[53:37] >>> good morning. We're on item 10
[53:41] the northbranch trail fields
[53:44] funding approval. We have randy,
[53:47] andy and josh
[53:49] visiting. Thank you.
[53:50] >> good morning.
[53:54] and thank you so much for making time
[53:56] for us on
[53:57] your agenda today on
[53:59] issue. Andy
[54:00] frank, park development division and
[54:02] while I have
[54:05] the honor of talking to
[54:07] you today I have to say that the credit for
[54:08] us being here
[54:11] today really goes to our engineering
[54:13] team, consulting team, our partners
[54:14] at
[54:16] state highway, our park leadership.
[54:17] we are very happy
[54:20] that we're able to come and ask this
[54:22] request today because it represents
[54:23] almost
[54:26] 15 years of work
[54:29] to get to this point.
[54:30] so I will proceed and proceed quickly
[54:34] and open it up to questions. I'm going
[54:35] to tell
[54:38] you because none of
[54:41] you were around except for
[54:43] mitra when this started in its infancy, I
[54:44] will
[54:47] give you the history and jump into
[54:48] where we
[54:50] are today and why we're here
[54:51] today with construction, construction
[54:53] bid results and
[54:55] the pdf for this project and what
[54:59] we're asking for
[55:02] is permission to transmit the
[55:05] special appropriation request for
[55:07] the fund. Let me talk about what northbranch
[55:08] trail is,
[55:11] not to be confused with
[55:12] northwest branch trail, northwest
[55:14] branch trail
[55:17] is further right
[55:20] near
[55:23] frankp and this project will
[55:25] connect mun caster road and emory
[55:26] lane
[55:29] trail which serves the citizens on
[55:32] the north side of caster mill.
[55:34] it's a great connection on the east
[55:35] side and connecting on the
[55:38] west side to an
[55:41] existing walkway along
[55:44] mun caster that will connect the community to
[55:47] the rest and provide trail head parking.
[55:48] this
[55:50] project extends in a
[55:51] recently built developer trail to
[55:53] the icc trail, an
[55:55] important connection. We're talking
[55:56] about adding over two miles of
[55:59] trail to our hard
[56:01] surface system and this trail is being
[56:02] designed to standards
[56:05] and specifications because
[56:08] of the transportation alternatives
[56:09] program brand
[56:11] that we had to use. Part of the cost
[56:14] here is because this is in a stream
[56:15] valley
[56:17] park
[56:20] and we are having to use concrete boardwalks
[56:21] and
[56:23] bridges to make this work. We're trying
[56:24] to do
[56:26] ada access and storm water treatment
[56:27] as required by
[56:28] the county. To get where we are in the
[56:29] lower
[56:32] left corner here is lake frank not
[56:34] named after me, we're not there yet,
[56:35] and what we're
[56:37] doing, the red line, maybe a little
[56:38] hard to see the squiggly
[56:41] line is our extension of our
[56:43] trail up to mun caster mill which
[56:44] goes
[56:45] about two-thirds of the way up the
[56:47] screen from upper left
[56:49] to lower right the connection we're
[56:50] making and then at the
[56:52] very top that left-to-right that is
[56:53] the icc and you
[56:55] can see a little bit of red that's
[56:56] connecting to
[56:59] the existing trail. So this is the
[57:00] expansion
[57:02] to our hard
[57:04] surface trail program that we're looking.
[57:07] what's the history? This trail is
[57:08] recommended in a lot
[57:11] of master plans and trail
[57:13] plans and the plan was ultimately
[57:14] approved in 2013 and
[57:17] then had to be amended in 2017. Yes.
[57:20] we are talking
[57:22] about 13 years ago. I'm not going
[57:23] to back away from
[57:26] that. The amendment we had to do there
[57:29] really involved addressing community
[57:30] concerns and
[57:32] it required us to relocate a trail
[57:35] head and provide this connecter trail
[57:37] that cross over northbranch, which
[57:38] did have the added
[57:41] benefit of connecting to that western part
[57:44] of the muncaster trail.
[57:47] this was a difficult project and this
[57:48] represents what
[57:50] it takes in this day and age for
[57:53] local governments to do hard things
[57:55] and this was challenging with some
[57:56] of our partners but
[57:59] also made possible by our different
[58:00] partners
[58:02] through dps, mde,
[58:05] wssc, and sha. But this did require --
[58:08] it required unusual things such as
[58:12] a clomr and it was involved
[58:15] with the sha office of highway
[58:16] structures and their standards are
[58:18] strict and updated their
[58:21] requirements for this
[58:24] in 2024. In 2025 sha required us to go
[58:25] back
[58:26] through ap evaluation and get a new
[58:27] approval
[58:30] from wssc. In virtually
[58:32] all these cases it was new staff we
[58:33] were working with that had
[58:35] to take a look at it. Finally this
[58:36] summer we
[58:38] received sha authorization to bid
[58:39] the project
[58:41] which we did as quickly as we could
[58:42] and
[58:45] we bid in october 2025. What did
[58:48] we get? We got competitive bids.
[58:50] we advertised this project a lot and in
[58:51] this we
[58:53] got a bid of just about $6 million
[58:54] in
[58:55] our competitive bid process. So we
[58:57] think we got
[59:00] a real bid that represents
[59:01] the market conditions as we speak
[59:03] today. So
[59:06] what does this do? Obviously, this
[59:07] project was talked about years ago.
[59:09] the world has changed in terms
[59:11] of the cost of construction. We talked
[59:14] a lot about the regulatory work we
[59:18] had to do. Right now in our cip,
[59:20] this pdf was given a total funding
[59:21] of just about
[59:24] $5. 3 million, of which $2 million was
[59:26] tap brand. The rest is through pos.
[59:29] the geobond and other sources. The
[59:30] cost to date
[59:31] to get where we have been is about
[59:33] $1. 5 million
[59:35] that represents staff time consultant
[59:36] time,
[59:38] some repair work that had to be done in the
[59:39] interim which
[59:41] allows us about 3. 8 remaining. What do we
[59:44] think this is going to cost to build?
[59:46] in addition to the contract costs
[59:48] there's also an
[59:51] sha coordination cost and construction
[59:52] management and
[59:53] we expect that the overall remaining
[59:54] cost is
[59:57] about $6.7 million.
[1:00:00] that results in a shortfall of
[1:00:03] $2. 9 million. This comes
[1:00:06] in oh, boy $2. 9 million doesn't come out
[1:00:07] of
[1:00:08] thin air. We went back to our partners
[1:00:09] at
[1:00:12] sha and they were able to secure
[1:00:15] an additional $2 million tap
[1:00:17] brand funding, $2 million not having
[1:00:18] to
[1:00:21] come out of the county program.
[1:00:23] that can cover everything. And so
[1:00:24] what we're going
[1:00:26] to --we would like to ask for is an
[1:00:27] additional
[1:00:30] 900,000 in county
[1:00:33] funds to match that tap grant
[1:00:35] and cover the additional costs of the
[1:00:36] construction
[1:00:39] management, implementing the
[1:00:41] project, and doing all those --doing
[1:00:42] the additional work
[1:00:45] to get this
[1:00:47] implemented. Now, we know that construction
[1:00:48] is challenging.
[1:00:50] we may find different things when
[1:00:51] in construction.
[1:00:54] there may be contingencies.
[1:00:55] the contingencies we're proposing
[1:00:57] to come out of our level of
[1:00:59] evident programs for our trail programs.
[1:01:00] that would
[1:01:02] be beyond anything that was required
[1:01:03] beyond
[1:01:06] that $900,000.
[1:01:09] but we do
[1:01:12] think it's important for us not to
[1:01:14] totally shut down the rest of the
[1:01:15] trail program that parks
[1:01:18] works on and we do think it's
[1:01:21] a valid request to
[1:01:24] county to find
[1:01:27] 900,000 county funding.
[1:01:29] we're working through the concurrence
[1:01:33] and award program with sha.
[1:01:35] coordinating with sha trying to save
[1:01:36] money on some
[1:01:38] of those remaining preconstruction
[1:01:39] items how we're going to
[1:01:42] set up the
[1:01:44] construction management testing, making
[1:01:45] agreements. What
[1:01:47] we need to do now because this is --
[1:01:48] time is of the essence.
[1:01:51] we have bids. We do have
[1:01:53] the bids. We require the contractor
[1:01:54] to hold their pricing
[1:01:56] for a certain amount of time but we
[1:01:57] can only
[1:02:00] do that for a certain amount of time
[1:02:01] to
[1:02:03] get this thing built. This is why we're
[1:02:04] here today
[1:02:05] and appreciating your accommodation.
[1:02:06] we
[1:02:08] need to ask for the planning board's
[1:02:09] approval to submit a
[1:02:11] special appropriation to the council
[1:02:12] to cover this additional funding.
[1:02:15] what would happen then the council
[1:02:16] president
[1:02:18] would refer that to the php
[1:02:19] committee and they would consider
[1:02:21] it and then to the full council for
[1:02:24] special appropriation and a cip amendment.
[1:02:25] the hope is
[1:02:27] to get this all done this spring so we
[1:02:29] can get notice to proceed on this
[1:02:30] 15-year project
[1:02:32] that's been a long time coming and
[1:02:33] our goal
[1:02:34] is to open up this project next fall for
[1:02:37] the community.
[1:02:42] with that we would like to ask our
[1:02:43] recommendation
[1:02:46] is to --
[1:02:49] for the planning board to
[1:02:52] approve $2. 9 million to
[1:02:54] the northbranch trail pdf including
[1:02:55] $2
[1:02:58] million of federal aid and
[1:03:00] $900,000 in geobond and request we
[1:03:01] can work with
[1:03:04] the chair to quickly transmit the
[1:03:06] request for special appropriation cip
[1:03:07] amendment to the council
[1:03:09] to facilitate allowing this project
[1:03:10] to
[1:03:12] get implemented under the pro kurmts
[1:03:13] activity. Thank you so much.
[1:03:14] I'd answer any questions you have.
[1:03:19] >> thank you.
[1:03:22] congratulations on getting
[1:03:24] this state to provide a $2 million
[1:03:26] grant. This is wonderful. This is
[1:03:28] absolutely wonderful.
[1:03:31] we always talked about
[1:03:34] trying to implement --
[1:03:37] it's been since
[1:03:43] 2013
[1:03:46] we've been pushing this and
[1:03:48] one of the things people are --it's needed and our been
[1:03:51] also want to see progress. We go to these meetings and they
[1:03:52] say you promised, not parks per
[1:03:55] se, but in general, things we put,
[1:03:58] we say we're going to do
[1:04:01] when in our plans in planning or -- that --
[1:04:03] but they never happen or don't happen
[1:04:04] in a
[1:04:06] timely manner. Thank you for getting
[1:04:07] the grant. That was a lot
[1:04:09] of money. Thank you. And we really --
[1:04:13] I'm supportive of this. I I want you
[1:04:16] to move as quickly as possible.
[1:04:19] this would be money from the fiscal
[1:04:21] year '26 county funds, correct?
[1:04:22] >>
[1:04:23] yes.
[1:04:24] it's important we request the county to appropriate
[1:04:25] this
[1:04:28] money in the fy26 'budget to meet
[1:04:30] the pro kurmts activity that's ongoing.
[1:04:32] thank you.
[1:04:33] >> questions or comments
[1:04:34] from the other board members?
[1:04:35] >>
[1:04:36] just to say very supportive as well.
[1:04:37] the $2 million
[1:04:39] in federal aid is that different than
[1:04:40] the additional grant
[1:04:43] from sha? I just wanted to clarify.
[1:04:46] >> the $4 million --the
[1:04:49] sha slash federal government is
[1:04:50] contributing $4 million now to this
[1:04:52] project all
[1:04:53] coming out of the tap program.
[1:04:54] >> okay.
[1:04:55] the tap specifically for two
[1:04:57] and two. Just wanted to clarify.
[1:04:58] >>
[1:04:59] if I
[1:05:00] may, so we had the $2 million grant
[1:05:01] originally.
[1:05:02] >> yeah.
[1:05:04] >> then the bid came in so high
[1:05:05] that honestly I don't know how we would
[1:05:07] have been able to move forward with the
[1:05:09] project as is. We were talking about
[1:05:10] scaling the project back,
[1:05:13] maybe doing it in phases, trying to
[1:05:14] get
[1:05:15] what we could with the money we had.
[1:05:16] I really want to give credit
[1:05:19] to staff who reached out to
[1:05:21] state highway and state highway essentially
[1:05:22] offered us
[1:05:25] an additional $2 million. That's why
[1:05:28] we're able to move forward with this
[1:05:30] project as it's planned for and designed
[1:05:31] now. Otherwise, I don't
[1:05:33] know what we would be doing. So, you
[1:05:34] know, a lot of credit
[1:05:36] to staff and, of course, thanks to
[1:05:37] state highway.
[1:05:39] these grant funds we're so happy to
[1:05:40] have them, they
[1:05:42] come with strings attached as you can
[1:05:43] see in this presentation.
[1:05:46] >> of
[1:05:49] course.
[1:05:50] >> there's a lot of requirements
[1:05:51] tied
[1:05:52] to this funding. It's not easy to
[1:05:53] get.
[1:05:55] this additional request for
[1:05:58] a supplemental in this cip is really
[1:06:01] it's a very reasonable delta given
[1:06:04] the bids that came in and the position
[1:06:06] we thought we were in before.
[1:06:07] >> money
[1:06:08] with strings attached
[1:06:09] is much better than no money when it's
[1:06:10] covering over
[1:06:13] two-thirds of the overage for that
[1:06:14] than you
[1:06:16] expected. I wanted to clarify and
[1:06:17] something
[1:06:19] that I think that's
[1:06:21] great. That's great and I think --
[1:06:22] I'm very supportive.
[1:06:25] appreciate it.
[1:06:28] >> so as you said, I'm
[1:06:31] very familiar with this project. The
[1:06:34] regional project manager on that mary
[1:06:37] ann retired. I don't know how many
[1:06:38] other staff
[1:06:40] have retired
[1:06:43] since this project has started
[1:06:45] and $1. 5 million that is already
[1:06:46] spent just
[1:06:49] think about it, is probably
[1:06:52] design and coordination costs.
[1:06:55] so, although that I'm very appreciative
[1:06:56] to
[1:06:58] get the grants, but
[1:07:01] this project is not
[1:07:04] a normal design project that parks
[1:07:07] department does. This project went
[1:07:08] through
[1:07:10] a lot of loops and
[1:07:12] difficulties because of their requirements
[1:07:15] and environmental requirements that
[1:07:16] was put on this project
[1:07:19] that it took so long. Of course we
[1:07:20] had to do some
[1:07:22] changes in the design
[1:07:25] and other things, but
[1:07:28] 1. 5 million the
[1:07:31] design
[1:07:34] for $2. 2 million --2.
[1:07:37] 2 million mile project
[1:07:41] is not normal.
[1:07:44] this is a
[1:07:47] great project and we need
[1:07:50] to streamline
[1:07:52] these permitting. We need to streamline
[1:07:56] when, you know, we
[1:08:01] love to get grants, but when it makes
[1:08:02] it so
[1:08:05] difficult that, you know, takes
[1:08:08] 15 years,
[1:08:10] with $1.5 million and then you get
[1:08:13] $2 million grant and then another
[1:08:16] 2, that we really appreciate to make
[1:08:17] it
[1:08:20] possible. But it makes it
[1:08:23] difficult. So I just put it at
[1:08:25] that and I appreciate and totally
[1:08:28] fully support this project. I don't
[1:08:29] know how
[1:08:31] much contingency you were thinking.
[1:08:32] maybe you
[1:08:34] should add that contingency because
[1:08:38] you need the level of
[1:08:41] effort pdf for your trail, but I
[1:08:44] leave it to your judgment. I trust
[1:08:45] your
[1:08:47] judgment that this is the right thing to
[1:08:48] do,
[1:08:50] but I wouldn't have minded --
[1:08:52] I don't know how much money is available
[1:08:53] for us to
[1:08:54] get and how much you're talking about,
[1:08:56] but I'm
[1:08:57] fully open to that if you like to do
[1:08:59] that. I
[1:09:01] fully support. This is a very good
[1:09:02] project.
[1:09:03] it hasn't died after 15 years. We need to build it.
[1:09:14] >>
[1:09:16] commissioner bartley or linden? No
[1:09:17] comments. Do I have a
[1:09:20] motion --
[1:09:21] >> I'm sorry. Go
[1:09:23] ahead.
[1:09:24] >> oh, no. Sorry. I
[1:09:26] don't want to --
[1:09:29] I wanted to thank staff
[1:09:30] and director for your entire team
[1:09:32] for your
[1:09:34] persistence in moving this forward over
[1:09:35] the
[1:09:38] past 15 years. I agree with
[1:09:41] what's been said
[1:09:43] about --especially commissioner pedoeem
[1:09:44] if this is how
[1:09:46] things to go that's not designed in
[1:09:47] a lot of ways
[1:09:50] but as we know, infrastructure in
[1:09:51] general
[1:09:52] is increasingly hard, not just in
[1:09:53] the county
[1:09:55] but in the country and costs and complexity
[1:09:58] of regulations and moving through
[1:09:59] implementing partners and
[1:10:01] on and on. I really appreciate and
[1:10:02] respect
[1:10:04] just, again, the perseverance to get
[1:10:05] this done. Seems like
[1:10:07] it's going to be a great project so thank
[1:10:11] you.
[1:10:12] >> great.
[1:10:14] so do I have
[1:10:17] a motion to --for approval to add
[1:10:20] $2. 9 million to the northbranch trail
[1:10:21] pdf including $2 million in the federal
[1:10:23] aid and
[1:10:26] 900,000 geobonds and the
[1:10:29] chair to transmit the request for
[1:10:32] special appropriations to facilitate
[1:10:34] timing council action to allow project
[1:10:37] implementation.
[1:10:38] >> move to approve adding
[1:10:39] the
[1:10:40] funds.
[1:10:41] >> I second. >> all in favor.
[1:10:42] >> yea. >> yea.
[1:10:44] >> yea. >> the yeas have it. Thank
[1:10:45] you. Thank
[1:10:47] you for speedily presenting this
[1:10:50] to us so we can move it forward.
[1:10:51] time is of the essence because costs
[1:10:53] keep going up. Thank you.
[1:10:54] >> yeah.
[1:10:56] we're going to take a one minute break
[1:10:58] and start with our next item legislative update.
[1:10:59] thank you.
[1:16:27] >>> good morning. We're
[1:16:29] on item number 9 legislative update
[1:16:30] and we have deborah and jordan. Welcome.
[1:16:39] >> thank you. We
[1:16:42] have the first
[1:16:45] of a series probably bills
[1:16:48] that we'll be discussing with you during
[1:16:52] this year's legislative session.
[1:16:54] I'm deborah borden, with me jordan colbert.
[1:16:57] thank you. You're going to put the
[1:16:58] bills up
[1:16:59] or the position statements up. First
[1:17:01] of
[1:17:04] all, I would love to thank
[1:17:05] several other people, other than jordan,
[1:17:07] that helped
[1:17:10] us out last night. We were
[1:17:11] working on these statements until
[1:17:13] late in the evening.
[1:17:16] bridget royer, emily
[1:17:19] vias, kimberly man young, and
[1:17:21] ilan into branda. We could not have
[1:17:22] done
[1:17:25] this without them and without
[1:17:28] their help. It
[1:17:31] was kind of critical yesterday,
[1:17:32] so not enough time in the day but when
[1:17:34] you have the help
[1:17:37] you need it's really great
[1:17:40] so thanks to them. So I
[1:17:43] will stand with the land use comprehensive
[1:17:45] general plans bill. We discussed this
[1:17:46] a little
[1:17:48] bit yesterday at the full commission
[1:17:49] meeting, and,
[1:17:52] yeah, this was a big one to review.
[1:17:54] this is the one that was 52 pages.
[1:17:55] the bill itself is
[1:17:58] 52 pages. As you can
[1:18:01] see.
[1:18:04] we put together some initial
[1:18:07] comments about these changes
[1:18:09] to basically the elements that would
[1:18:11] go into comprehensive plans for the
[1:18:13] state that would include
[1:18:16] your general plan, your
[1:18:18] master plans, sector plans. Basically
[1:18:21] your comprehensive plans would have
[1:18:25] to include these
[1:18:28] revised elements. Some of
[1:18:31] them are new elements and so we
[1:18:34] had a lot of questions
[1:18:36] from both planning departments about
[1:18:37] these changes.
[1:18:40] this --I don't believe this is
[1:18:43] actually set for a hearing date
[1:18:45] yet or at least it's not within the
[1:18:48] next week or so, so we will continue
[1:18:49] to look at this bill.
[1:18:51] there's just so much in there. There's
[1:18:52] no
[1:18:54] way that we could get everything on
[1:18:55] the first
[1:18:58] pass. We're also going to reach
[1:19:00] out to the department of planning
[1:19:01] and see if we
[1:19:03] can enter dialog with them. There's
[1:19:04] a
[1:19:06] lot to unpack here, and I don't want
[1:19:07] to give
[1:19:09] anybody the impression we are finished
[1:19:10] with this with reviewing
[1:19:13] this bill. This is
[1:19:15] going to be a process. So I think I
[1:19:16] can stop
[1:19:19] there and see, do you want me to go
[1:19:22] through and hit some of the points
[1:19:23] in our initial comments or do you
[1:19:25] have questions
[1:19:28] that you would like to dive into yourself?
[1:19:30] >> well, we would like you to go over
[1:19:31] suggested recommendations.
[1:19:34] we're going to see this again.
[1:19:37] we're not making a decision on
[1:19:39] this right now, but it would be good
[1:19:43] to go over the key items
[1:19:44] that you guys worked on last night that
[1:19:46] you think are --we need
[1:19:49] to really focus on.
[1:19:52] >> okay. We can
[1:19:55] do that. Okay.
[1:19:58] so some of the more pressing
[1:20:00] issues, I guess, I feel jump to are
[1:20:04] the inclusion of things
[1:20:07] like apf style study.
[1:20:10] putting that into a plan.
[1:20:13] that rang alarm bells with me from a
[1:20:15] legal standpoint. You know, comprehensive
[1:20:16] plans
[1:20:19] are
[1:20:22] aspirational, visioning. They are not, you
[1:20:23] know,
[1:20:25] legal code. They don't
[1:20:28] have regulatory impact
[1:20:31] except in very small
[1:20:34] exceptional cases.
[1:20:37] for the most part, master
[1:20:40] plans are not intended
[1:20:43] to be regulatory documents and so when
[1:20:46] you start talking about adequate public
[1:20:48] facilities ordinances and adequate
[1:20:49] public facilities
[1:20:52] studies, those are really a different
[1:20:53] animal
[1:20:55] and they really, I think, it
[1:20:58] becomes problematic to try to include
[1:21:01] that kind of thing in a comprehensive
[1:21:02] plan
[1:21:04] of any kind, even if it's a smaller
[1:21:05] study
[1:21:07] area. It's very difficult to do both
[1:21:10] same time and do them
[1:21:13] both well. You know, just because, you
[1:21:16] know, even if you were able to put
[1:21:17] something like that
[1:21:18] into your comp plan, you know, your
[1:21:19] comp plan is supposed to be
[1:21:22] in place for ten
[1:21:24] years or more. Things change, and, you
[1:21:25] know, so how are you
[1:21:28] going to change and adapt to that
[1:21:31] if your apf is buried in
[1:21:34] a master plan. We think it's
[1:21:37] confusing and we would like to get
[1:21:38] more
[1:21:39] information about what they're trying to
[1:21:40] do. One of
[1:21:44] the other things that
[1:21:47] stood out is on, I
[1:21:49] guess on the second page that's on
[1:21:50] the
[1:21:53] screen. Let's see,
[1:21:56] page 6, lines 23 of the bill, 23
[1:21:59] to 30. It
[1:22:02] talks about religious
[1:22:05] institutions and that plans
[1:22:08] should identify
[1:22:10] the most appropriate patterns and
[1:22:13] locations for religious institutions.
[1:22:16] that is problematic as well because
[1:22:18] religious institutions have special
[1:22:20] protection under federal law,
[1:22:22] specifically related to land use and
[1:22:25] specifically related to governmental
[1:22:26] burdens caused
[1:22:28] by land use regulations. We are not
[1:22:29] supposed to be in
[1:22:31] the business of telling religious
[1:22:32] institutions
[1:22:34] where they can go and where we think they
[1:22:35] can go. That's
[1:22:38] just a little too
[1:22:40] close to putting additional burdens
[1:22:41] on them. What
[1:22:43] if they don't agree and they want
[1:22:44] to go some
[1:22:46] place else? So, you know, we flagged
[1:22:50] that for them. Let's see. What
[1:22:52] else do we have?
[1:22:53] >> why do you think
[1:22:54] they put that in
[1:22:56] there and then after that,
[1:22:59] vice chair linden has his hand
[1:23:02] up. Why?
[1:23:05] >> I --I
[1:23:08] don't
[1:23:10] know. I have, you know, I can speculate
[1:23:11] they
[1:23:14] think in some counties churches,
[1:23:17] religious institutions, you know,
[1:23:20] take up a huge
[1:23:22] amount of land and they think that
[1:23:23] we
[1:23:25] need to do a better job of, I don't
[1:23:28] know, having some say about that,
[1:23:29] but
[1:23:32] it's a touchy thing to
[1:23:33] suggest because we're not supposed to
[1:23:35] be doing that. You
[1:23:38] know, for the most part in most
[1:23:41] zoning codes,
[1:23:42] religious institutions are allowed
[1:23:44] to go just about
[1:23:47] anywhere, just about
[1:23:49] anywhere a residential use is allowed,
[1:23:52] religious institutions are allowed.
[1:23:55] anywhere commercial uses are allowed
[1:23:56] religious institutions are
[1:23:59] allowed and that's on purpose. So
[1:24:02] the suggestion was a little
[1:24:05] alarming that we should
[1:24:08] somehow start telling religious institutions
[1:24:10] where we would prefer them to go and
[1:24:11] then what
[1:24:14] do we do with that
[1:24:15] recommendation when the religious
[1:24:17] institution comes in and wants to
[1:24:18] go
[1:24:20] some place else.
[1:24:23] that puts us in a very difficult situation
[1:24:26] and
[1:24:28] possibly in a situation where we would be
[1:24:29] violating
[1:24:32] rlupa. That's something we would want
[1:24:34] to talk to the state planners about.
[1:24:35] it
[1:24:38] may be that that was not their intention, but
[1:24:39] we
[1:24:41] don't know if they thought about
[1:24:44] that.
[1:24:45] >> thank you.
[1:24:47] vice chair linden?
[1:24:50] >> thanks, artie. Yeah. On
[1:24:53] the religious piece, I
[1:24:56] totally agree that feels like
[1:24:59] a strange and complicated
[1:25:02] and very --yeah, very
[1:25:04] tricky, something that has --yeah,
[1:25:05] I take your
[1:25:08] point, that has a
[1:25:11] lot of potential problems. But
[1:25:14] I wanted to touch just quickly on
[1:25:17] like you were describing as the
[1:25:20] apfo piece of this
[1:25:22] bill, and I'm trying to better understand
[1:25:26] how you think the bill kind of describes
[1:25:29] the need to provide that funding because --
[1:25:32] and admittedly I read
[1:25:36] through it for the first time yesterday and
[1:25:38] I think I'm still trying to get my
[1:25:40] head around a lot of pieces you were talking
[1:25:41] about. My reading of it
[1:25:44] was less --and please, obviously,
[1:25:46] correct me, my reading it was less
[1:25:47] describing an
[1:25:50] apfo finding or
[1:25:52] specific study and more trying to
[1:25:53] express the
[1:25:56] need to have
[1:25:59] a discussion around infrastructure
[1:26:00] and
[1:26:02] facilities and services to
[1:26:05] accommodate future growth and that kind
[1:26:06] of
[1:26:08] discussion is
[1:26:11] not particularly unusual within comprehensive
[1:26:12] plans in other
[1:26:14] areas. Like just as an
[1:26:16] example, in washington state, cities,
[1:26:17] counties are required to
[1:26:20] have what they call a capital facilities
[1:26:21] element, they're
[1:26:24] required to have a
[1:26:25] utilities element, and the way they
[1:26:27] do it
[1:26:29] out there within the capital facilities element they
[1:26:30] use
[1:26:33] that discussion to inform a
[1:26:34] facility's capital improvement program
[1:26:36] that's part of
[1:26:38] the comprehensive plan, obviously,
[1:26:39] here in this
[1:26:40] county, you know, for the reasons
[1:26:42] that, you know, because
[1:26:43] we're distinct the coin has its own
[1:26:45] cip
[1:26:46] and we don't really directly influence
[1:26:48] that,
[1:26:49] although we make recommendations, but I
[1:26:51] think the benefit
[1:26:54] in washington state
[1:26:56] of including an infrastructure discussion is
[1:26:57] that it directly
[1:26:59] links growth concepts and growth plans
[1:27:00] and future
[1:27:03] land
[1:27:06] use designations to a
[1:27:08] formally adopted cip of some sort, and
[1:27:09] not
[1:27:12] saying that that would
[1:27:13] be part of this here, but if it's
[1:27:15] not required to make
[1:27:18] a specific apfo finding, because
[1:27:20] I agree that kind of finding is complex
[1:27:23] and kind of --obviously, directly
[1:27:24] related to
[1:27:26] development, and requiresrequires
[1:27:27] study,
[1:27:29] I tend to think there could be a benefit
[1:27:32] to having a discussion around infrastructure
[1:27:33] in part because we have
[1:27:35] those --we have those discussions
[1:27:39] anyway with our
[1:27:42] master plans
[1:27:43] and kind of policy discussions and
[1:27:45] we talk about the growth and
[1:27:46] infrastructure policy every four years, but I
[1:27:48] think it helps to make
[1:27:50] our master plans more practical. It
[1:27:51] helps to
[1:27:54] daylight things potentially for county
[1:27:55] council within our recommendations
[1:27:57] to make sure
[1:28:00] they understand the direct
[1:28:01] relationships there and I think it's
[1:28:03] a helpful
[1:28:06] communications tool to the
[1:28:07] public we do understand what's nest
[1:28:09] in a
[1:28:11] general way to accommodate the growth
[1:28:14] we need and based on how I've seen
[1:28:15] it done in
[1:28:17] other places I think it can be done
[1:28:18] without
[1:28:21] an intensive study of the sort if
[1:28:23] apfo would require. I guess that's
[1:28:24] a long way
[1:28:26] of saying I would be interested to
[1:28:27] see
[1:28:30] if you're reading it differently that it
[1:28:32] is specifically talking about adequate
[1:28:33] public facilities
[1:28:36] or if, you know, the --
[1:28:39] potentially more generalized
[1:28:42] requirement that we can then
[1:28:44] implement as, you know, in other words
[1:28:47] if there's some flexibility we could
[1:28:48] make it
[1:28:51] fit our updates?
[1:28:52] >> so I will
[1:28:54] give you a general answer and then I
[1:28:57] feel defer to jason sartori,
[1:29:00] director of planning and his staff.
[1:29:03] so generally
[1:29:04] speaking, of course we talk about infrastructure in
[1:29:06] our master plans in our
[1:29:09] general plans. Infrastructure, public
[1:29:12] utilities, public
[1:29:15] facilities, are all very crucial to
[1:29:18] planning, you know, in any sense.
[1:29:21] so that is not the
[1:29:24] issue. The issue is what --why are
[1:29:26] they changing the language? What are
[1:29:30] they trying to get at?
[1:29:33] you know, what's new about
[1:29:36] this? And in reading
[1:29:38] through it seems like they're getting
[1:29:39] way too
[1:29:42] close to an adequate
[1:29:45] public facility's type finding and
[1:29:46] so
[1:29:47] because we're not sure we need to
[1:29:48] reach out to them,
[1:29:51] we need to say to them this is
[1:29:54] worrisome because this is not the
[1:29:57] place to do that type of study, but
[1:29:58] if
[1:29:59] you mean something else then let's talk
[1:30:00] about how we
[1:30:03] can clarify that. Let's talk about
[1:30:05] what your intent actually is so that we
[1:30:06] can get to
[1:30:09] that. Because all of us, prince
[1:30:12] george's, montgomery, we're all looking at
[1:30:13] our public
[1:30:15] facilities, the adequacy of them,
[1:30:18] every single time that we do
[1:30:21] a master plan, but we're looking at
[1:30:22] them in a
[1:30:24] general, holistic, what are the trends
[1:30:25] kind of
[1:30:27] ways. We're
[1:30:30] not doing be a study. We seem
[1:30:33] to, in this language, be getting sort
[1:30:36] of conflating those things and we
[1:30:37] want
[1:30:38] to make sure that that is not the
[1:30:39] case and that as we
[1:30:43] go forward we
[1:30:45] all know what we're talking about
[1:30:46] when we
[1:30:49] say we want you to analyze
[1:30:51] the public facilities, public institutions, all
[1:30:53] of these things that are, of course, you
[1:30:55] know, already sort of
[1:30:56] embedded in the idea of master planning.
[1:30:58] but
[1:31:01] we want to know what
[1:31:04] they mean by this
[1:31:05] new language so that we can make sure
[1:31:07] we're clear. I don't
[1:31:10] know if jason is online or in
[1:31:11] the room. But please add to that.
[1:31:15] >> I am here. Thank you. Vice chair
[1:31:17] linden, thank you for asking that
[1:31:19] question. I have
[1:31:20] not personally taken too close of
[1:31:22] a look at
[1:31:24] this bill yet. But I will --I will
[1:31:28] take a closer look at
[1:31:31] it. I agree that it's --it would
[1:31:34] be fine for
[1:31:37] a bill to have general statements about
[1:31:38] the importance of infrastructure in
[1:31:40] a comprehensive
[1:31:43] plan, but anything that
[1:31:44] gets too specific we have so many
[1:31:46] other methods and
[1:31:49] tools by which
[1:31:50] we do that it wouldn't be appropriate
[1:31:52] to have those in
[1:31:53] a comprehensive plan. I also want
[1:31:55] to make
[1:31:57] sure that what we're looking at is
[1:31:58] applicable
[1:31:59] to counties because there are parts
[1:32:00] of this bill specifically intended
[1:32:04] for municipalities and
[1:32:07] not counties and so I will take
[1:32:09] a look at closer at this. I don't
[1:32:10] know if
[1:32:12] robert might have additional comments on
[1:32:13] this.
[1:32:16] >> yeah. Thank.
[1:32:19] I'm sorry.
[1:32:20] >> go ahead. >>
[1:32:22] just real quick,
[1:32:25] thanks. I appreciate that. I was
[1:32:27] about to raise that same issue about
[1:32:31] whether this applies
[1:32:33] to municipalities or counties. We
[1:32:34] have a little bit more
[1:32:36] to read through. Looking through the
[1:32:37] language it
[1:32:39] appears to me on first glance this
[1:32:40] particular
[1:32:42] section talk about municipalities
[1:32:46] and their future growth
[1:32:49] areas outside of the limits.
[1:32:52] and later on it talks about
[1:32:54] public service and infrastructure
[1:32:58] to accommodate growth within the growth
[1:33:00] areas. I appreciate everything that
[1:33:01] y'all
[1:33:04] are saying. I very much
[1:33:06] agree clarity around bills like this
[1:33:10] is hugely important. I
[1:33:12] was mostly raising the question to
[1:33:13] better understand
[1:33:16] if we think it does --like
[1:33:19] making sure that, you know, we ourselves
[1:33:21] fully understand it, clarifying with them
[1:33:22] if they fully
[1:33:24] understand it, if it veers too closely
[1:33:25] for counties,
[1:33:27] that's a little more problematic.
[1:33:30] but this sounds like we're sort of --
[1:33:32] I appreciate everything you're saying.
[1:33:34] we're on the same page.
[1:33:35] >> I'm
[1:33:37] not sure there's much more to add
[1:33:38] to that other
[1:33:40] than getting clarification and
[1:33:42] providing a little bit more information
[1:33:43] on what's in the
[1:33:45] bill. For our comp plans, they are
[1:33:46] intended to be
[1:33:48] long-range visions and so that's why
[1:33:49] you do an
[1:33:52] apf test at the
[1:33:53] development stage with a real project
[1:33:55] that comes in. Again, the
[1:33:58] comp plans are intended to
[1:34:01] be visionary and not
[1:34:04] address specific apf testing at
[1:34:06] that time. We look at infrastructure
[1:34:07] through master plans
[1:34:10] but not to the level of a
[1:34:12] development application. I think that's
[1:34:13] why
[1:34:16] that language in the bill kind
[1:34:19] of --
[1:34:20] >> thank you both for that.
[1:34:22] I think you can
[1:34:25] move onto
[1:34:28] the --
[1:34:30] >> I want to highlight just a couple
[1:34:34] of other things.
[1:34:37] there is a
[1:34:40] sort of
[1:34:43] a theme running through this bill
[1:34:44] that
[1:34:46] they want us to look at more things
[1:34:49] and do more deep
[1:34:52] analysis, so things like
[1:34:55] the elimination of substandard
[1:34:58] dwelling conditions, a full
[1:35:01] housing
[1:35:04] assessment, which is not
[1:35:05] really defined, you know, more economic
[1:35:07] analysis, again, which
[1:35:10] is not really defined.
[1:35:12] you know, this could mean that we
[1:35:13] would have
[1:35:16] to hire more experts in these areas.
[1:35:17] it could
[1:35:20] mean we would have to take
[1:35:22] more time to complete these plans
[1:35:26] if we're going to do real
[1:35:29] deep dives
[1:35:30] into, you know, housing conditions
[1:35:32] and economic analysis.
[1:35:35] again, we want to have a
[1:35:37] constructive conversation about what this
[1:35:38] means
[1:35:41] on a
[1:35:43] practical level because there can
[1:35:45] be, you know, a sense that you --
[1:35:47] you're
[1:35:50] pursuing the perfection.
[1:35:52] you're pursuing, you know, the perfect and you
[1:35:55] could end up analyzing forever and never
[1:35:56] getting your
[1:35:58] plan done. I mean, you know, there
[1:35:59] are
[1:36:01] lots of things we wish we could do
[1:36:05] with master plans, but they are,
[1:36:06] you know, they are --they have to
[1:36:11] be finite at some point,
[1:36:12] and so these things are concerning
[1:36:14] because it --
[1:36:17] they just keep adding and
[1:36:19] adding to areas where we would have
[1:36:20] to, you
[1:36:23] know, sort of beef up
[1:36:25] resources and add time and add more
[1:36:26] time to
[1:36:29] a process that's already pretty
[1:36:32] lengthy in some, you
[1:36:35] know, some circles. That's a concern
[1:36:38] that we have.
[1:36:39] >> great. >> great
[1:36:40] to --
[1:36:41] >> anything else. >> that would
[1:36:42] be great to get
[1:36:44] more clarification and ask why.
[1:36:47] I think director sartori had his
[1:36:49] hand raised.
[1:36:50] >> thank you. I had a
[1:36:51] question about
[1:36:53] this. I know a lot of this --
[1:36:55] well, portions of this are a repackaging
[1:36:56] of what
[1:36:58] already exists. Some of these things
[1:36:59] were already required
[1:37:02] and renaming them, they were reordering
[1:37:03] them.
[1:37:05] they are adding a few
[1:37:11] new things. I'm curious, though, the
[1:37:12] way
[1:37:14] we do master plans to our
[1:37:16] general plan thriving versus all of
[1:37:19] the master plans and sector plans
[1:37:20] that we
[1:37:23] work through that are
[1:37:26] amendments to thrive. So, you
[1:37:28] know, a housing element has been required
[1:37:29] and our housing
[1:37:31] chapter in thrive was found to be
[1:37:32] sufficient as the
[1:37:33] housing element required by state
[1:37:35] law
[1:37:37] previously. Do we need to have all
[1:37:38] of these
[1:37:40] different types of elements in all
[1:37:41] this detail
[1:37:44] in every single master plan
[1:37:47] or is it sufficient for us to have elements
[1:37:48] in
[1:37:50] thrive alone? How does this exactly
[1:37:51] apply to
[1:37:52] that distinction?
[1:37:53] >> yeah. That's
[1:37:56] a good question, and that's
[1:37:58] not entirely clear from the bill, you
[1:37:59] know, because
[1:38:02] legally, the definition of comp
[1:38:03] plan or comprehensive plan, would
[1:38:05] apply to all of our
[1:38:08] master plans, all of our sector plans,
[1:38:09] you
[1:38:11] know, doesn't matter how large
[1:38:14] the geography is. You know,
[1:38:17] so that's a good question. And
[1:38:20] that's one that we would like to discuss with
[1:38:21] the
[1:38:23] department of planning.
[1:38:26] you know, because
[1:38:29] again, you could read --you know, you
[1:38:30] could
[1:38:32] read this to apply to just
[1:38:35] about any planning process that
[1:38:38] we enter into and that could be
[1:38:41] incredibly impactful, you know. I
[1:38:42] can't
[1:38:44] answer your question, but I
[1:38:47] think that's a good
[1:38:49] question.
[1:38:50] >> commissioner linden has his
[1:38:51] hand up.
[1:38:56] >> director sartori's
[1:38:58] question, I'm glad, thank you for
[1:38:59] asking that, that
[1:39:01] was one of the things I was going
[1:39:02] to raise as well. Sounds
[1:39:05] like some charity there is good.
[1:39:08] I just had one final comment
[1:39:11] about --I know
[1:39:13] we're not making decisions on this
[1:39:14] today, so this is more
[1:39:17] comment for our own consideration
[1:39:18] as we
[1:39:19] move toward, you know, deciding how
[1:39:20] we want
[1:39:22] to transmit or, you know, whether
[1:39:23] we want to transmit support or
[1:39:25] just comments or whatever the case
[1:39:26] is. So
[1:39:28] it looks like they're introducing
[1:39:32] a new resilience element, which I
[1:39:35] saw, you know, some
[1:39:38] discussion around that in ms.
[1:39:41] jordan's team document, which appears
[1:39:44] to sort of get at --
[1:39:47] it appears to cover a variety of different
[1:39:50] things, environmental,
[1:39:53] climate, probably some other things.
[1:39:54] I
[1:39:55] was wondering if there would be any
[1:39:56] appetite on our end
[1:39:59] to considering a recommendation to
[1:40:03] the bill authors to
[1:40:05] consider reframing this element as
[1:40:08] some version of climate change and
[1:40:12] resilience to, you know,
[1:40:15] just to elevate climate
[1:40:18] to a more kind of serious
[1:40:19] point of consideration in all of our
[1:40:21] master planning and
[1:40:24] general plan efforts. Not that
[1:40:25] we internally don't here. I know we
[1:40:27] do it here. In
[1:40:29] terms of state wide. I think that could
[1:40:30] be --
[1:40:32] it's coming back to kind of, you know,
[1:40:35] emerging practices or how other communities
[1:40:36] are sort of
[1:40:38] treating climate change from a planning
[1:40:39] perspective these
[1:40:42] days. Increasingly many do
[1:40:45] try to have chapters
[1:40:48] or elements within these comp
[1:40:51] plan updates for master plan
[1:40:54] or sector plan updates. It provides
[1:40:55] a
[1:40:56] way to talk about several different
[1:40:57] things
[1:41:00] including what jurisdictions
[1:41:03] can do to reduce
[1:41:06] greenhouse gas to
[1:41:08] the com plan and cover resilience
[1:41:09] too.
[1:41:10] I guess that's an open question for
[1:41:14] us if that's something that we could
[1:41:15] discuss more
[1:41:17] as we move toward a decision on this
[1:41:18] and if it's
[1:41:20] worth providing that recommendation
[1:41:21] back to the
[1:41:22] state. Obviously, recognize that, you
[1:41:24] know, when you
[1:41:27] start introducing kind of things and climate
[1:41:30] change at a legislative
[1:41:33] level
[1:41:35] it gets political quick and I get
[1:41:36] that and taking a
[1:41:38] bite at the apple without raise too
[1:41:39] long many
[1:41:42] flags. I do think it's
[1:41:44] worth elevating. I understand it's
[1:41:45] something
[1:41:48] worth taking on if we're supportive
[1:41:51] of making that
[1:41:54] recommendation. Wants I wanted to
[1:41:55] flag something
[1:41:56] on my mind with our work, obviously,
[1:41:57] but
[1:41:58] this seems like a good opportunity
[1:42:00] to
[1:42:03] codify it in state law.
[1:42:06] >> would defer to director
[1:42:08] sartori's staff to come up with some
[1:42:09] maybe
[1:42:12] proposed language and then we
[1:42:15] could react to that. And
[1:42:18] maybe they could, you know,
[1:42:21] include a little sort
[1:42:23] of blurb to talk about why they think
[1:42:24] it's a better framing of
[1:42:26] the issue. I would defer to that.
[1:42:27] >> thanks for bringing
[1:42:30] that up, vice
[1:42:32] chair. I would like to, give all this
[1:42:33] that just
[1:42:36] came through, I would
[1:42:37] like to review it all and we're all looking
[1:42:39] at it together and the next time
[1:42:41] we get together we can discuss it.
[1:42:42] but thank you
[1:42:45] for bringing that up.
[1:42:46] >> okay. I
[1:42:47] feel move onto the next. And thank you
[1:42:48] for those
[1:42:51] comments. I really
[1:42:54] appreciate them. So the next one is
[1:42:57] the starter and silver homes act.
[1:43:00] we mentioned this yesterday
[1:43:03] at your meeting. The --this
[1:43:06] is the bill
[1:43:09] from the governor's administration
[1:43:12] dhcd had
[1:43:15] proposed this bill.
[1:43:18] this bill would
[1:43:21] make some fairly
[1:43:24] significant inroads by the
[1:43:27] state into local zoning
[1:43:30] authority.
[1:43:33] the
[1:43:36] bill would --
[1:43:39] that we not enforce
[1:43:42] lot size, setback, dimension
[1:43:45] requirements, design,
[1:43:48] architectural elements, for
[1:43:51] certain single-family homes.
[1:43:54] and the
[1:43:57] bill would prohibit local --the
[1:44:00] local
[1:44:03] jurisdictions from certain
[1:44:06] subdivisions. It would
[1:44:09] allow as long as a lot
[1:44:12] has sufficient lot
[1:44:15] size, it would allow, you
[1:44:18] know, basically buy right subdivision, you
[1:44:19] know,
[1:44:21] up to a
[1:44:24] certain size. This
[1:44:27] bill
[1:44:30] really makes a lot of changes in
[1:44:33] a statewide way to local zoning rules
[1:44:34] and
[1:44:37] regulations that differ
[1:44:40] county by county. And sometimes
[1:44:43] city or town by city.
[1:44:44] so we're very concerned about the sort
[1:44:49] of one-size-fits-all approach
[1:44:52] to this. We're
[1:44:55] concerned about the impact
[1:44:57] on existing neighborhoods because you
[1:44:58] can
[1:45:00] visualize this, existing neighborhood
[1:45:01] that
[1:45:04] maybe has a lot or
[1:45:07] two that hasn't been built yet.
[1:45:10] that lot could then come in and
[1:45:13] say, well, I don't have to do
[1:45:16] setbacks, I don't have to do
[1:45:18] minimum lot requirements anymore, I
[1:45:19] can split this lot into two
[1:45:22] and build two homes
[1:45:23] where normally, you know, and in looking at
[1:45:25] the
[1:45:26] neighborhood I would only build one.
[1:45:28] and the other thing that
[1:45:31] really concerns us
[1:45:34] is, there are other
[1:45:36] efforts to increase affordable housing
[1:45:40] or increase the supply of
[1:45:43] housing. And one of those efforts
[1:45:44] was
[1:45:46] recent. It was the adu bill,
[1:45:47] the requirement that, you know, we
[1:45:49] all figure out
[1:45:52] a way to
[1:45:55] do and to allow accessory
[1:45:57] dwelling units. Well, you know, we're
[1:45:58] not
[1:46:01] really sure that this is going to
[1:46:04] work well or work in concert with
[1:46:07] that. This new bill, it seems to
[1:46:10] us,
[1:46:13] may contradict or work, you know, to
[1:46:14] have
[1:46:16] the opposite effect of the adus. Because
[1:46:18] if you can just split your lot and
[1:46:19] create
[1:46:22] another home or sell another lot
[1:46:25] for another home to be
[1:46:28] built, wouldn't
[1:46:31] that just, you know, be a
[1:46:34] disincentive to do an adu?
[1:46:35] we're not sure if that would apply because there are so
[1:46:40] many
[1:46:43] different issues that we would have
[1:46:44] to
[1:46:46] test to see if that's the case,
[1:46:47] but we're concerned that might be the
[1:46:49] case
[1:46:52] because we would have to put through
[1:46:55] the parameters that are in this bill
[1:46:56] and
[1:46:58] actually test them and
[1:47:01] see if, you know, if it makes, you
[1:47:04] know, the adus
[1:47:07] less palatable to
[1:47:08] people who could just divide their
[1:47:10] lots instead where maybe they
[1:47:13] couldn't divide their
[1:47:15] lots today. So we want to look at
[1:47:16] that.
[1:47:19] we want to do some examples so that we
[1:47:20] can
[1:47:22] show that, you
[1:47:25] know, these concerns are real.
[1:47:28] we have some
[1:47:29] technical comments we've put together.
[1:47:31] we
[1:47:33] do have a meeting scheduled with the
[1:47:34] department
[1:47:35] of housing and community development at
[1:47:37] the state level. We want to talk to them about
[1:47:38] this bill.
[1:47:43] you know, because, you know,
[1:47:46] we're concerned. We're
[1:47:49] concerned about the state treating all
[1:47:52] of our
[1:47:55] counties the same and expecting a
[1:47:56] good
[1:47:58] result. We don't think this is
[1:48:01] going to have a good
[1:48:02] result because the results will be
[1:48:04] uneven and sometimes they will
[1:48:07] be counter to what the
[1:48:09] state is trying to do, and that's
[1:48:10] not
[1:48:13] helpful. You know, it doesn't help
[1:48:14] when, you know,
[1:48:15] the state thinks, you know, this is
[1:48:16] what we're
[1:48:18] going to do, this is how we're going
[1:48:19] to do it and it
[1:48:21] doesn't work at the local level. That
[1:48:22] doesn't
[1:48:24] help any of us. We're trying to be
[1:48:25] helpful. We
[1:48:28] want to be helpful. We want --we all
[1:48:29] have
[1:48:30] the same goal. We want affordable
[1:48:31] housing. We
[1:48:34] want more supply of affordable housing.
[1:48:37] that is what we
[1:48:40] want. There's no question about that.
[1:48:42] it's about how we get there and not
[1:48:45] going forward too fast and making
[1:48:46] mistakes that will then make
[1:48:48] the provision of affordable housing
[1:48:49] harder. We don't
[1:48:51] want that. We're going to work with
[1:48:52] them.
[1:48:55] these are our initial comments, as I
[1:48:56] said.
[1:48:58] we will bring this back
[1:49:00] to you again probably at least twice,
[1:49:01] so that we
[1:49:04] can refine what we're saying and
[1:49:07] hopefully we'll get
[1:49:10] some clarity when we meet with dacd.
[1:49:13] we'll get some clarity
[1:49:16] on some of these points. Hopefully
[1:49:17] they'll
[1:49:19] be open to some suggestions about
[1:49:20] what we
[1:49:23] can do to make all of this work.
[1:49:26] >> yes.
[1:49:27] >> I'll stop there and see if you have
[1:49:29] any questions.
[1:49:30] >> can I say
[1:49:32] one thing? It's a fine
[1:49:35] line and I know one size doesn't
[1:49:38] fit all and just
[1:49:40] certain areas having, you know, really, really
[1:49:43] small lots may not work. The goal is how do
[1:49:47] you
[1:49:50] --can we
[1:49:53] make? To give the nudge,
[1:49:55] right, how do you --what are --what
[1:49:59] are comments that
[1:50:02] give a nudge to all
[1:50:04] the municipalities around that you
[1:50:08] need to do things differently?
[1:50:11] so I know what's here won't make
[1:50:14] it --but --because we all
[1:50:16] municipalities even in our county, you know,
[1:50:17] there's the down
[1:50:19] county, the mid county, up county
[1:50:20] with all
[1:50:23] different right of way
[1:50:24] of lot sizes. Let's think through.
[1:50:26] let's put
[1:50:29] our thinking hats on.
[1:50:32] what could we say that
[1:50:35] could give the nudge? You need some
[1:50:37] nudges because we've tried really
[1:50:38] hard over
[1:50:41] the past couple years with all
[1:50:43] of these obtainable housing, more
[1:50:44] housing now and
[1:50:47] these other
[1:50:50] things, to try to
[1:50:53] do it in a way where we
[1:50:54] have people on our local level, you
[1:50:56] know, in our
[1:50:59] own context, and everyone agrees
[1:51:02] we need more housing, all
[1:51:05] types, everywhere. But we're
[1:51:08] not getting there.
[1:51:11] what's --what gets approved
[1:51:13] is nominal for the --
[1:51:14] >> for the larger --
[1:51:15] >>
[1:51:17] so let's --that would
[1:51:19] be my suggestion. Let's put our heads
[1:51:20] together. How
[1:51:23] can we change all this and
[1:51:24] give recommendations to at least provide
[1:51:26] a nudge. We do want
[1:51:28] to bring our local partners in the
[1:51:29] game. Don't want
[1:51:32] to get too ahead of them, but at
[1:51:35] the same time we haven't --
[1:51:36] >> just
[1:51:37] trying
[1:51:38] to understand
[1:51:41] this bill a little bit more.
[1:51:43] when you say certain areas, could
[1:51:44] you
[1:51:47] just give a little bit more
[1:51:50] example? Where
[1:51:53] are those certain areas?
[1:51:54] >> okay.
[1:51:56] I will go to the bill
[1:51:59] and I will look at --
[1:52:02] let's see. Some of the
[1:52:05] language. Luckily this bill
[1:52:06] is not 52 pages.
[1:52:07] >> and just so you
[1:52:11] know, lisalisa here as well.
[1:52:12] >> wonderful.
[1:52:13] >> to help you out with some of the
[1:52:14] details.
[1:52:15] >> thank you.
[1:52:17] actually, why don't I defer
[1:52:20] to lisa on that question?
[1:52:21] >>
[1:52:23] sure. Lisa, planning
[1:52:26] supervisor with design --so the
[1:52:29] area that we're generally talk
[1:52:30] about in this bill are areas that
[1:52:32] are connected or planned to
[1:52:35] be connected to public water
[1:52:37] and suer systems. So one of the things
[1:52:38] we're come back
[1:52:40] with, we have a graph of the zones
[1:52:41] and how much of them are covered
[1:52:44] by water and sewer, but if
[1:52:46] we're generally talking about our
[1:52:47] residential
[1:52:50] detach, so think
[1:52:53] 60, our 90,
[1:52:56] 40, 200, some of the residential state
[1:52:57] zones like ra
[1:52:59] 2, ra 1, but not the
[1:53:00] entirety of the zones because they're
[1:53:02] not all
[1:53:05] served by water and seer
[1:53:08] with which ms. Jordan said the problem
[1:53:09] one size
[1:53:10] fits all but our zones are not one
[1:53:11] size fits
[1:53:13] all.
[1:53:14] >> it's the majority of the county?
[1:53:15] >>
[1:53:16] the majority of the residential zones.
[1:53:17] >> residential zone.
[1:53:20] and the way that it is
[1:53:23] written, it's going to change it
[1:53:26] with no public input and no council
[1:53:29] oversight, so the thing is
[1:53:32] that supposedly this bill goes
[1:53:35] through people really don't follow
[1:53:36] it
[1:53:38] and suddenly everything in the county
[1:53:39] would
[1:53:41] change with no public
[1:53:43] input or the county council oversight.
[1:53:44] is that correct?
[1:53:47] >> I think the public input on the
[1:53:50] state legislative session.
[1:53:51] >> yeah.
[1:53:52] >>
[1:53:53] but generally there would be a lot
[1:53:54] of changes that would have to be
[1:53:55] made to minimum lot sizes, coverage
[1:53:56] and setback.
[1:53:59] there would be a lot of changes to those
[1:54:02] through this legislation.
[1:54:03] >> yeah.
[1:54:04] I know
[1:54:05] that's some of my --I can hear --
[1:54:08] but I do
[1:54:11] support, you know, what, you know, ms.
[1:54:14] borden talked about. That's something
[1:54:15] that we
[1:54:17] don't really know how it's going to
[1:54:18] be
[1:54:21] done and how it would
[1:54:23] work. You know, usually if you have
[1:54:26] public access available and everything, you
[1:54:27] know, public
[1:54:28] transportation or something, but this
[1:54:30] is not even looking at
[1:54:31] that. It's just looking at public
[1:54:33] water and
[1:54:35] sewer.
[1:54:36] >> that was one of the comments
[1:54:37] that the
[1:54:38] overarching comments we made this kind
[1:54:39] of
[1:54:41] goes against a lot of growth. A lot
[1:54:42] of
[1:54:45] our zones areare 200, for
[1:54:47] example, not exactly the most transit
[1:54:48] accessible zone for
[1:54:50] a lot of it and that goes against
[1:54:51] some of our
[1:54:54] basic --
[1:54:55] >> yes. And
[1:54:57] also the quality of life for
[1:54:58] the existing communities completely.
[1:55:00] that's why when
[1:55:01] you take the public input out that's the
[1:55:03] impact you could see.
[1:55:06] >> I would just
[1:55:08] like to comment that I've read through
[1:55:09] the language and
[1:55:11] it's incredibly complex and I appreciate
[1:55:14] the technical comments about sewer
[1:55:15] and water
[1:55:16] access but there's nothing in this
[1:55:18] billbill would do what we
[1:55:20] say we want to do is increase housing
[1:55:21] supply.
[1:55:23] we've seen and know from existing
[1:55:24] jurisdictions who have
[1:55:27] lowered the lot size to 1800
[1:55:28] square feet, I'm thinking of austin
[1:55:30] specifically we've seen a growth
[1:55:33] and growth in housing supply
[1:55:34] and we've seen empirically what happens
[1:55:36] when we do what we've been doing
[1:55:39] which is a crash in multi family
[1:55:41] starts. So we --the argument that
[1:55:42] we're not
[1:55:44] sure what's going to happen, I think
[1:55:45] empirically doesn't hold
[1:55:48] a ton of weight for
[1:55:50] me and I think from a goal standpoint
[1:55:51] we've been trying
[1:55:53] and we've been going backwards. So
[1:55:54] what we say we
[1:55:57] have a goal of affordable
[1:55:58] housing, increased housing supply
[1:56:00] and as a county we've
[1:56:03] gotten worse over the last year. Housing
[1:56:05] starts have been down badly. And I
[1:56:06] think there's
[1:56:08] nothing in this bill that's not empirically
[1:56:09] supported by
[1:56:12] evidence from outside of our
[1:56:13] jurisdiction that it will increase
[1:56:14] housing supply and not cause major issues.
[1:56:15] the
[1:56:17] things about the technical comments
[1:56:18] from, you know, things like access
[1:56:20] to sewer and water, one of the reasons
[1:56:21] that you don't have access
[1:56:23] to sewer and water out there is because
[1:56:26] it's intended to like stop housing
[1:56:27] supply out there.
[1:56:29] that's one of the reasons that we
[1:56:30] have in one of the
[1:56:32] richest counties in the world septic
[1:56:33] and well which
[1:56:34] I like don't quite understand coming
[1:56:36] from rural texas. You had
[1:56:37] septic and well because you couldn't
[1:56:39] get sewer and
[1:56:42] public water where I was from.
[1:56:45] and we've talked about it in the
[1:56:47] planning commission before about the
[1:56:48] safety,
[1:56:49] collapse of those and pollution that
[1:56:51] happens with these septic systems.
[1:56:53] I appreciate technical corrections
[1:56:54] there. I
[1:56:56] understand and would support some
[1:56:57] comment like
[1:56:58] that, but I think we should expand
[1:57:00] public sewer and water for a
[1:57:02] variety of reasons not the least of
[1:57:03] which being housing
[1:57:05] supply. We have goals that we have
[1:57:06] stated. If this is
[1:57:08] a turf battle let's just say it's
[1:57:09] a turf battle. If this
[1:57:12] is a policy goal, then let's
[1:57:14] treat it as policy goals. I said very
[1:57:15] similar
[1:57:16] things at the overall meeting yesterday.
[1:57:18] I'm fine with
[1:57:21] technical comments. I'm fine with
[1:57:23] discussing issues here. But the actual
[1:57:25] policies implemented here are things we
[1:57:27] have talked about and discussed with
[1:57:28] attainable housing and other situations.
[1:57:30] if it's a turf battle it's
[1:57:33] a turf battle. If it's a policy
[1:57:35] issue treat is as a policy issue.
[1:57:36] nothing jumps out from
[1:57:39] my reading here that this is in any
[1:57:40] way, shape, or
[1:57:41] form a danger to anything that --
[1:57:44] or any of our stated goals. And we
[1:57:45] have the
[1:57:47] evidence for that. We have other jurisdictions
[1:57:48] who have
[1:57:50] experienced all the things mentioned in
[1:57:51] this policy. We can
[1:57:54] go with actual data. And we can go with goals
[1:57:55] and policies
[1:57:56] that we've set forth and thrive in
[1:57:57] our situations.
[1:57:59] so I think overall we should treat
[1:58:00] this as a policy
[1:58:03] issue not as a one size fits all because
[1:58:04] this
[1:58:06] isn't one size fits all. This is taking
[1:58:07] away the
[1:58:08] level of unnecessary complexity we have
[1:58:09] layered on
[1:58:11] over decades and decades which we
[1:58:12] know inhibits the growth of housing supply.
[1:58:15] treat it one way
[1:58:17] or the other but let's be particular about
[1:58:18] what we're doing. Those are my comments on it.
[1:58:24] >> linden?
[1:58:27] >> yeah.
[1:58:30] I don't have much to add to
[1:58:33] that.
[1:58:36] I agree with
[1:58:38] commissioner hedrick's comments almost
[1:58:42] entirely. I do take the point about sort
[1:58:43] of, you
[1:58:45] know, how does this square with kind
[1:58:46] of
[1:58:48] smart growth principles. It would
[1:58:51] be lisa, it would be great
[1:58:55] to see kind of a map of
[1:58:57] what you're describing and just understanding
[1:58:58] throughout the county kind of which --
[1:59:01] where this would apply and
[1:59:03] proximity to various things, but I
[1:59:05] also, you know, based on everything
[1:59:07] we were
[1:59:08] saying and what commissioner hedrick
[1:59:10] was getting
[1:59:13] at, the
[1:59:14] water/sewer infrastructure right now --
[1:59:16] apologies,
[1:59:19] that's my 6-month-old --but the
[1:59:22] water/sewer infrastructure kind
[1:59:25] of functionally serves as
[1:59:28] a boundary to
[1:59:31] try to constrain
[1:59:33] housing stock or at least density
[1:59:36] generally but place it in closer proximity
[1:59:38] to other infrastructure. We can debate
[1:59:40] the merits of that, of course,
[1:59:43] but that exists and the
[1:59:45] bill seems to acknowledge that. Also kind
[1:59:46] of layers on
[1:59:48] that, that constraint in terms of
[1:59:49] where this
[1:59:52] would apply. But outside of
[1:59:54] that, I tend to think that minimum
[1:59:55] lot sizes
[1:59:56] and really driving those down, the
[1:59:58] size
[2:00:01] of those, I think that that
[2:00:04] is a great strategy
[2:00:07] and I agree with commissioner hedrick
[2:00:08] evidence across the country shows
[2:00:09] it actually does move the needle.
[2:00:10] there are some
[2:00:12] mixed results when it comes to like
[2:00:15] middle housing in terms of performance,
[2:00:16] the devil
[2:00:18] is in the details of housing in a lot
[2:00:19] of ways.
[2:00:21] some communities have moved forward
[2:00:22] with great success.
[2:00:25] others are kind of stagnant. But
[2:00:28] dropping the minimum lot size
[2:00:31] is a way to, in some
[2:00:33] cases, functionally achieve middle
[2:00:34] housing
[2:00:36] densities even if we can't get middle
[2:00:37] housing
[2:00:40] types like multiplexes.
[2:00:42] this would legalize townhomes which I
[2:00:43] think is a
[2:00:45] great addition as well. But the minimum
[2:00:46] lot size, you
[2:00:49] know, particularly in a county
[2:00:52] like ours, where
[2:00:54] there's so much variability, even
[2:00:55] within our 60 or
[2:00:58] 90 --we had this conversation on attainable
[2:01:00] housing, huge distribution of lot
[2:01:01] sizes,
[2:01:03] and right now I'm just thinking specifically
[2:01:04] in my
[2:01:07] neighborhood just as
[2:01:09] one example, I know personally of
[2:01:13] two 20,000 foot r-60 lots that can right
[2:01:15] now hold one house. Or they could
[2:01:16] try to split
[2:01:19] it to get
[2:01:22] down to, you know, a
[2:01:24] few, you know, 6,000 minimum. But
[2:01:25] this really, you know,
[2:01:27] this increases it beyond that, right.
[2:01:28] like, this really tries to
[2:01:31] maximize
[2:01:33] the land we have close to infrastructure,
[2:01:37] closer to the infrastructure we already
[2:01:40] have, and, you know, it doesn't
[2:01:43] really try to get into other --introducing
[2:01:45] other housing types which, you know,
[2:01:49] there's, obviously, benefits for that
[2:01:52] as well in terms of
[2:01:55] attainability in
[2:01:57] different needs. In terms of supply, to
[2:01:58] provide more supply,
[2:02:00] where we're not seeing multi families,
[2:02:01] we just
[2:02:04] need to keep doing things, and
[2:02:07] I'm not particularly concerned that
[2:02:08] the state
[2:02:10] doing something
[2:02:13] potentially and not us. We kind of
[2:02:16] live in a regional community and everything relates
[2:02:17] to
[2:02:18] each other and I think having a flat
[2:02:19] floor or a
[2:02:21] set standard across the entire state
[2:02:22] is actually a good
[2:02:25] thing in many
[2:02:28] ways. I think it would benefit
[2:02:30] us, too. So I --which is all to say
[2:02:31] that,
[2:02:34] yeah, the technical
[2:02:37] clarifications and comments and suggestions
[2:02:40] based on our particular circumstances I
[2:02:41] think
[2:02:43] that sounds great. But I also agree
[2:02:44] that I think this
[2:02:46] is one example of maybe kind of
[2:02:49] keeping our eye on
[2:02:51] the policy ball and given what we
[2:02:52] know about
[2:02:54] how difficult things can be, here in
[2:02:55] the county, with
[2:02:58] our master plan,
[2:03:01] with
[2:03:04] policy, attainable
[2:03:06] housing, it seems like there's --
[2:03:07] sorry about that --seems like
[2:03:09] the state wants to work with us and
[2:03:10] help us.
[2:03:11] >>
[2:03:13] yeah. Great.
[2:03:14] >> and I think this is
[2:03:15] one case we should welcome that help.
[2:03:16] >> can
[2:03:22] >> the
[2:03:24] minimum lot size included here is
[2:03:25] 5,000 square feet.
[2:03:28] not that much smaller than our existing
[2:03:31] r60 and a minimum sized
[2:03:34] r90. We have oversized
[2:03:37] lots, but this is not making
[2:03:39] radical changes to our residential
[2:03:40] zones.
[2:03:41] >>
[2:03:43] well, yes and no. So, we
[2:03:46] have more land
[2:03:49] area in our 200 within
[2:03:52] the qualifying area than r60 and r90.
[2:03:54] >> that is because of large lots.
[2:03:55] >> yes.
[2:03:58] the minimum lot sizes are
[2:04:01] 220,000.
[2:04:04] this is a combination of
[2:04:07] issues. There is a turf battle, and
[2:04:08] there
[2:04:09] is a policy issue. It is both. The
[2:04:10] state, in
[2:04:13] doing this, is applying
[2:04:16] very specific zoning requirements
[2:04:17] and
[2:04:19] standards, kind of in a blanket way
[2:04:20] across the
[2:04:22] entire state. It is a one size fits
[2:04:23] all
[2:04:24] without regard to differences between
[2:04:25] counties. But
[2:04:28] then there is also within our county,
[2:04:29] it
[2:04:31] is applying a one size fits all. It
[2:04:32] does
[2:04:34] not recognize that, you know, we
[2:04:37] take a scalpel to
[2:04:40] our zoning.
[2:04:43] we look property by property. This
[2:04:44] would
[2:04:46] apply to 14 different zones in montgomery
[2:04:48] county that have 14 distinct purposes
[2:04:52] and reasons. Instead of a scalpel
[2:04:53] it
[2:04:55] is a
[2:04:58] machete.
[2:04:59] >> some of them are
[2:05:00] townhome density ones.
[2:05:01] >> we can come
[2:05:02] back with maps that
[2:05:03] show you where it would apply, but
[2:05:07] the concern is
[2:05:10] that we have decades in the state
[2:05:11] with
[2:05:12] policy and within montgomery county.
[2:05:15] I mean we just did a general plan
[2:05:16] update where we
[2:05:19] were explicit about smart
[2:05:21] growth, sustainable growth patterns.
[2:05:22] we have
[2:05:25] lots and zones
[2:05:28] that it would apply to that are zoned
[2:05:31] as large lot residential uses for
[2:05:34] that purpose. So the concern here is not
[2:05:35] every
[2:05:37] area that has water and sewer service
[2:05:38] in montgomery
[2:05:39] county is an area that we have said
[2:05:41] is
[2:05:44] a priority for growth.
[2:05:46] generally the idea of smaller lot
[2:05:47] sizes is
[2:05:49] great. We talked about stuff like
[2:05:50] that a lot.
[2:05:51] but really in the areas that we see
[2:05:53] the
[2:05:55] infrastructure and we see our near
[2:05:56] existing
[2:05:58] centers. Infrastructure is more than
[2:05:59] water and
[2:06:02] sewer. If they came in and said
[2:06:04] this applies only to areas within
[2:06:05] a certain distance
[2:06:08] of transit or other existing
[2:06:09] infrastructure, then I would say that
[2:06:11] it is more of a
[2:06:14] turf battle than a policy
[2:06:17] battle.
[2:06:23] >> we are going
[2:06:26] to hear this. But it would be
[2:06:29] great if youryour can come back.
[2:06:32] if it said x,
[2:06:34] you know, what would you have to say
[2:06:35] to
[2:06:37] bring it back to the board for you
[2:06:38] to
[2:06:41] say yes,
[2:06:42] this is something that would be good to
[2:06:44] do?
[2:06:47] you know,
[2:06:50] I do agree.
[2:06:53] the county does want it in
[2:06:56] certain areas.
[2:07:02] where would we want to have
[2:07:05] the smaller lots that are 55,000 square
[2:07:08] feet or less?
[2:07:14] but we need to keep
[2:07:17] going here.
[2:07:20] miss borden.
[2:07:21] >> yes, we
[2:07:22] do. Thank you for that discussion.
[2:07:26] I really
[2:07:29] appreciate how tricky that
[2:07:31] these issues are with this matter,
[2:07:32] you know.
[2:07:35] this affordable
[2:07:37] housing push has been a multiyear
[2:07:38] effort.
[2:07:41] we are going to get both of
[2:07:44] the
[2:07:47] planning
[2:07:50] departments together to
[2:07:53] talk about alternatives. You
[2:07:56] know, we do not want
[2:07:59] this to
[2:08:02] be viewed as a turf battle. We
[2:08:05] want to help.
[2:08:14] it
[2:08:17] is a tricky difficult puzzle and don't
[2:08:18] think
[2:08:20] the one size fits all approach will
[2:08:22] work. We are ready to do that. We
[2:08:23] will do
[2:08:26] our best to do.
[2:08:29] but I wanted to make the
[2:08:31] point that we tried the scalpel and
[2:08:32] the opposite of one
[2:08:35] size fits all with 14 different residential
[2:08:38] zones. What have we gotten for our
[2:08:41] efforts? A housing crisis. We are
[2:08:43] totally fine with a one size fits
[2:08:44] all approach when
[2:08:47] it is a limit on development and
[2:08:50] supply.
[2:09:05] one other comment.
[2:09:08] can we be nice
[2:09:10] if the state would have policies that
[2:09:14] would incentivize. They
[2:09:17] need policies that would move
[2:09:19] the needle enough where people would
[2:09:20] say yes in this
[2:09:23] case. Right now. Let's do it.
[2:09:26] how? Is there money out there?
[2:09:29] is there whatever? How do you
[2:09:32] incentivize this. You know, this
[2:09:35] is human nature. Please. I know
[2:09:38] that you have more to go. We
[2:09:41] only allocated --
[2:09:42] >> I
[2:09:44] just want to say that I
[2:09:46] do support what the director said.
[2:09:47] I think
[2:09:49] that is how the approach should be
[2:09:50] to make it
[2:09:53] happen and to prioritize the
[2:09:56] areas where we could do this. Not
[2:09:59] as a whole.
[2:10:11] >> hb10.
[2:10:13] legal advertisement or notice. This
[2:10:14] bill is a long
[2:10:17] time coming. We really hope the bill
[2:10:18] passes.
[2:10:20] this would basically change the definition
[2:10:23] of legal notice.
[2:10:26] it
[2:10:29] would allow the use of
[2:10:32] digital media.
[2:10:35] you
[2:10:38] have to go to a digital media publication
[2:10:41] that publishes online and pay them
[2:10:44] to publish your
[2:10:47] notice.
[2:10:53] you can use it
[2:10:56] instead of a print publication.
[2:10:59] we think this will save us
[2:11:02] money. You know, we think that it
[2:11:03] is a
[2:11:05] really good idea. We do a lot of
[2:11:08] notice publications in our planning
[2:11:09] departments.
[2:11:11] particularly for master
[2:11:15] plans. Community planning does a
[2:11:18] lot of
[2:11:21] legal notice and occasional
[2:11:24] notice at the
[2:11:27] corporate
[2:11:30] level. So,
[2:11:31] we are very much in support of this.
[2:11:33] we didn't have to
[2:11:35] think about it too much. But we prepared
[2:11:39] some comments.
[2:11:41] if you have questions I would be happy
[2:11:45] to answer them.
[2:11:54] is the legal
[2:11:57] notice going to be
[2:12:00] limited?
[2:12:06] with
[2:12:08] community interest or alsoalso affect
[2:12:12] proceedings?
[2:12:15] >>
[2:12:18] any statutory requirement for
[2:12:21] legal notice.
[2:12:27] I don't know if I
[2:12:29] can abstain from this. I am against
[2:12:32] electronic --
[2:12:33] >> except provided by
[2:12:34] law
[2:12:36] a resolution or
[2:12:39] court order.
[2:12:42] this is
[2:12:45] for other cases, by newspaper
[2:12:46] or newspaper in general circulation.
[2:12:48] that is the
[2:12:50] current term. Now they just added
[2:12:51] that
[2:12:53] it can mean print or digital publication.
[2:12:56] there is congratulational criteria
[2:12:57] to make sure
[2:12:59] it is a legitimate outlet, but it
[2:13:00] does not
[2:13:02] affect the court stuff.
[2:13:03] >> thank you
[2:13:04] emily.
[2:13:05] >>
[2:13:06] yeah.
[2:13:09] giving notice of a
[2:13:14] this property is going to be rezoned.
[2:13:15] >> not for
[2:13:17] mailing. It does not affect mailing
[2:13:18] notices, only
[2:13:19] when it specifically says by newspaper.
[2:13:24] you know, generally that is the
[2:13:27] master plan.
[2:13:30] the super.
[2:13:36] it
[2:13:39] just says allow. Now go to a
[2:13:40] legitimate digital source as well.
[2:13:42] >> okay.
[2:13:45] the
[2:13:48] digital newspaper.
[2:13:51] how do the people know to
[2:13:54] go to the digital newspaper?
[2:13:55] >> people
[2:13:56] are doing it now. I think partly what
[2:13:57] we
[2:13:59] are thinking is that we will reach
[2:14:00] more people. The number
[2:14:02] of people that get a newspaper now
[2:14:03] is
[2:14:05] dwindling significantly. So many people
[2:14:06] get
[2:14:09] it electronically.
[2:14:18] I don't know about the costs.
[2:14:21] the newspapers know know this.
[2:14:24] sometimes it is less. Sometimes
[2:14:27] it is not.
[2:14:30] the planning department realizes that
[2:14:33] is how they reach a lot of
[2:14:36] people, through electronic
[2:14:39] opposed to paper.
[2:14:48] you can do the digital version
[2:14:51] of the
[2:14:54] newspapers.
[2:14:57] I have a question about cost.
[2:15:00] miss borden said that it would be
[2:15:01] less
[2:15:03] expensive.
[2:15:06] how?
[2:15:09] >> I think that it just depends on
[2:15:12] the outlet. Maybe we just don't know.
[2:15:15] I think that it depends.
[2:15:16] >> I don't
[2:15:18] know. And without endorsing any outlet,
[2:15:19] I
[2:15:21] will say that an example, you know,
[2:15:22] right now
[2:15:24] when we have aa
[2:15:26] hearing we advertise in the washington
[2:15:27] times. We don't
[2:15:29] have a print publication in montgomery
[2:15:30] county, however
[2:15:33] we have the new
[2:15:36] banner. Bethesda magazine.
[2:15:39] we have other local digital media
[2:15:40] outlets
[2:15:42] that we could be
[2:15:45] using that would probably connect
[2:15:46] more
[2:15:48] to montgomery
[2:15:51] county residents and it may
[2:15:53] be cheaper but we have not done it.
[2:15:54] >> I
[2:15:57] am curious. I always wanted to ask
[2:15:58] this. Why
[2:16:00] the times? Why not
[2:16:02] the post?
[2:16:03] >> I think it is cheaper than
[2:16:04] the post.
[2:16:06] >> that was all.
[2:16:09] >> I am against
[2:16:12] the
[2:16:15] .
[2:16:16] >> I can't support it with
[2:16:18] me knows how
[2:16:21] electronic
[2:16:24] publications can manipulate
[2:16:27] the information. If there is
[2:16:30] an error made but
[2:16:33] not in print.
[2:16:39] I
[2:16:42] think that print media is better
[2:16:46] to capture the areas without
[2:16:49] edits that would deprive the
[2:16:52] public for fair opportunity.
[2:16:55] I can't support digital
[2:16:58] publication.
[2:17:00] it has happened with banks who have
[2:17:01] given digital
[2:17:03] statements, make an error and go back
[2:17:04] and correct
[2:17:06] the statements opposed to republishing or reprinting
[2:17:07] the error.
[2:17:18] >> I can't support it. >> isn't it
[2:17:19] true that
[2:17:22] electronic media does
[2:17:24] not --
[2:17:25] >> they can do a publication
[2:17:26] that
[2:17:28] is incorrect that would
[2:17:31] require them to
[2:17:34] lish and set the deadline and
[2:17:37] the timeline. Instead of
[2:17:40] republishing in lifetime they
[2:17:42] only reset the date. When you have
[2:17:43] a
[2:17:45] publication that is incorrect and
[2:17:46] requires a
[2:17:49] notice. It requires a new
[2:17:51] publication and the deadline and the
[2:17:54] timeline. My concern if you make an
[2:17:56] error electronically, and say the
[2:17:58] clock starts
[2:18:01] ticking now rather than them
[2:18:03] republishing and then having the new timeline.
[2:18:04] you
[2:18:06] can go back and correct the error
[2:18:07] and not
[2:18:09] reset the clock and allege there was
[2:18:10] no
[2:18:13] error at all.
[2:18:25] when
[2:18:26] you electronically publish something and
[2:18:28] there is an
[2:18:31] error,
[2:18:34] there is the possibility where they
[2:18:35] correct something electronically and say
[2:18:37] no. It was
[2:18:40] always that way.
[2:18:49] in print, there is no
[2:18:52] edit.
[2:19:01] can you add
[2:19:04] something
[2:19:06] or how would you address that?
[2:19:07] >>
[2:19:08] I would not
[2:19:10] address it in
[2:19:13] the physical statement.
[2:19:16] if we were
[2:19:18] to use digital publication that we
[2:19:19] would have
[2:19:22] to have
[2:19:25] a printed representation
[2:19:28] of what was the
[2:19:31] digital legal
[2:19:34] notice
[2:19:37] that we can compare that the
[2:19:39] notice has been changed. It would
[2:19:40] be
[2:19:42] a part of our process that we have
[2:19:43] to print
[2:19:46] the original
[2:19:49] notice when it
[2:19:52] goes out and print from the website
[2:19:53] or
[2:19:54] the publication so that we have it
[2:19:55] on day one
[2:19:58] so that we can then
[2:20:01] use that as
[2:20:03] our verification that is what it said
[2:20:04] on day one. If
[2:20:07] it gets changed, we have a bone
[2:20:10] to pick with the publisher. We can
[2:20:11] extend
[2:20:13] the time that we need, you know, in
[2:20:14] terms
[2:20:16] of the notice period. We have a lot
[2:20:17] of
[2:20:18] experience doing that and working
[2:20:19] with that. You know,
[2:20:22] our signs. Signs
[2:20:25] get blown down.
[2:20:34] if the sign is
[2:20:37] blown down a
[2:20:40] notice period would be extended so
[2:20:41] everybody can
[2:20:42] go to the hearing or be notified of
[2:20:43] the
[2:20:46] hearing. It is not
[2:20:48] that much different.
[2:20:49] >> I am supportive
[2:20:50] if this goes
[2:20:52] through that is in the process.
[2:20:55] you know.
[2:20:58] >> we would make it so.
[2:21:01] >> okay.
[2:21:10] >> do we
[2:21:12] need a vote for that one?
[2:21:13] >> yeah.
[2:21:14] thank you. Do we have
[2:21:16] a vote on that one so
[2:21:19] that we are
[2:21:22] sure we
[2:21:25] can make the representation.
[2:21:26] >>
[2:21:28] I move for approval.
[2:21:29] >> all in favor.
[2:21:30] >>
[2:21:31] aye.
[2:21:32] >> aye.
[2:21:34] >> aye.
[2:21:49] >> okay. The
[2:21:52] next one is sb121, public
[2:21:55] servant protections.
[2:21:58] this is part two, really. Part one
[2:21:59] was
[2:22:01] the
[2:22:04] wilkinson act.
[2:22:07] I think that went through last year
[2:22:08] or
[2:22:10] the year before.
[2:22:16] if you were
[2:22:19] a judge in this case you
[2:22:21] could request your personal information
[2:22:22] to be removed
[2:22:25] from websites run by
[2:22:28] government entities.
[2:22:40] he is used to
[2:22:42] dealing with these requests. It has
[2:22:43] been running smoothly.
[2:22:46] we have not had problems or hiccups
[2:22:47] with
[2:22:49] it. This is now expanding
[2:22:52] the wilkinson act, basically, to
[2:22:55] other people who
[2:22:59] are
[2:23:02] in
[2:23:04] need of extra protection. What the
[2:23:05] new
[2:23:08] bill will do is add, in addition
[2:23:11] to
[2:23:12] judges, attorneys. Members of the
[2:23:16] general assembly. Various, you know,
[2:23:17] different
[2:23:19] actors. Let me go through and get
[2:23:23] the list.
[2:23:26] it
[2:23:29] would allow
[2:23:31] them to request their personal information
[2:23:32] to
[2:23:35] be
[2:23:38] removed. Protected
[2:23:39] individuals include attorneys, state
[2:23:41] prosecutor, state's
[2:23:44] attorney, u.s. Attorney. Current
[2:23:47] or retired law enforcement.
[2:23:49] retired member of the police force
[2:23:50] or other member
[2:23:53] of the united states. Federal,
[2:23:56] state or local elected officials.
[2:23:59] spouses and
[2:24:02] depend ants of those folks. You
[2:24:04] know, if their information and address
[2:24:08] would appear in our
[2:24:10] system they can request for that information
[2:24:11] to
[2:24:14] be removed. Now, when it gets to be
[2:24:15] that the information is a part of
[2:24:17] our record in a case
[2:24:20] it gets a little
[2:24:23] bit complicated.
[2:24:32] but you know, as the list
[2:24:34] expands, and we expect that it will
[2:24:38] continue to expand.
[2:24:41] we might
[2:24:43] have to add resources to deal with
[2:24:47] the requests.
[2:24:55] I will stop there and see if you have
[2:24:56] any questions.
[2:24:59] >> I think that this is a
[2:25:02] good idea.
[2:25:08] I
[2:25:11] think they need to have
[2:25:17] anonimity because of the views others
[2:25:18] share,
[2:25:20] however I think there needs to be
[2:25:21] an
[2:25:22] ability to obtain the addresses in
[2:25:25] the event that these people or individuals
[2:25:26] are subject
[2:25:28] to legal actions that require them
[2:25:29] to
[2:25:32] be served.
[2:25:38] if there is a request for
[2:25:41] their addresses for the purposes
[2:25:44] of constituting a legal
[2:25:47] matter against
[2:25:50] them
[2:25:52] I think that needs to be available
[2:25:53] for those
[2:25:55] reasons only and there needs to be
[2:25:56] a way
[2:25:59] it is managed. An example would be
[2:26:02] an off duty police officer driving
[2:26:05] his private vehicle is involved
[2:26:07] in an automobile accident and subject
[2:26:11] now to a personal injury claim.
[2:26:14] they are not
[2:26:17] expect from being
[2:26:20] pursued in a civil
[2:26:23] litigation act. Being
[2:26:25] served and it shouldn't be allowed.
[2:26:26] there
[2:26:29] has to be some kind of
[2:26:32] a
[2:26:35] provision
[2:26:40] provision.
[2:26:41] >> thank you for that.
[2:26:42] how would
[2:26:44] we address that?
[2:26:50] >> I think that idea
[2:26:53] is being addressed. The bill is establishing
[2:26:56] a program under
[2:26:59] the secretary of
[2:27:02] state that would be the
[2:27:05] clearing house for the confidentiality
[2:27:08] requests. You know, just like the
[2:27:10] secretary of state is where you would
[2:27:11] go if
[2:27:14] you can't find a resident agent to
[2:27:15] serve. You
[2:27:16] would go to the secretary of state
[2:27:17] if you
[2:27:19] could not find an address because someone
[2:27:20] requested the confidentiality.
[2:27:26] >> you are saying that
[2:27:28] there is a way to get the information?
[2:27:29] >> yes. The bill
[2:27:31] is establishing the program under
[2:27:32] the secretary of state. Yeah.
[2:27:35] you would go there. You would go there
[2:27:38] in order to get the information.
[2:27:47] I don't know. This is not the
[2:27:50] type of thing that we get involved
[2:27:51] in. You
[2:27:52] know, usually we are dealing with the people
[2:27:53] that come
[2:27:56] and testify and give their address.
[2:27:57] you know,
[2:27:59] we are not generally the place
[2:28:01] to go if you are looking for someone.
[2:28:02] >> okay.
[2:28:05] any other comments or
[2:28:08] questions?
[2:28:11] is there
[2:28:14] a motion?
[2:28:15] >> one more. I'm sorry.
[2:28:18] >> yeah. We do have one more. We
[2:28:19] don't have a position statement for
[2:28:21] it. Just
[2:28:24] very quickly, this is a
[2:28:27] bill that would
[2:28:30] require --those were informational
[2:28:32] comments. We don't need a vote on
[2:28:33] that unless you
[2:28:36] do want us to take a position
[2:28:39] on the protected
[2:28:42] individuals.
[2:28:51] so,
[2:28:54] the last one, I promise,
[2:28:55] public schools, water safety and swimming
[2:28:57] course.
[2:28:58] this bill would require the state
[2:29:00] board of
[2:29:03] education to develop a crim lumb
[2:29:04] around water safety and swimming.
[2:29:06] this is the
[2:29:09] second time that the
[2:29:11] bill has come before the general assembly.
[2:29:12] we would
[2:29:14] like to support the bill. We think
[2:29:15] that it
[2:29:17] can be workable in the sense that
[2:29:21] it requires a crim lumb but it
[2:29:22] does not require each school to have
[2:29:24] a pool. Water
[2:29:25] safety is important. Obviously we
[2:29:27] have facilities.
[2:29:29] some of our facilities have pools
[2:29:30] and some of
[2:29:33] the facilities are
[2:29:35] in close proximity to public schools.
[2:29:36] we are
[2:29:39] happy to work with schools to help them
[2:29:42] with this curriculum as
[2:29:45] well as help
[2:29:48] them
[2:29:57] do or plan for implementation. I
[2:30:00] will stop there.
[2:30:03] there is
[2:30:05] a class, and how do we participate
[2:30:09] in the class?
[2:30:12] there
[2:30:15] are models for this
[2:30:18] throughout the country.
[2:30:24] we
[2:30:27] want to talk about water
[2:30:30] safety courses.
[2:30:36] we are a
[2:30:39] resource, and we
[2:30:42] want to
[2:30:54] we are raising our hand to
[2:30:57] help and
[2:31:00] do
[2:31:12] .
[2:31:13] >> last year
[2:31:14] I did verbal testimony with her on
[2:31:15] the bill and she has
[2:31:18] been working with the parks and
[2:31:21] recreation department to ensure
[2:31:24] that we
[2:31:27] provide sound
[2:31:29] feedback and recommendation for the
[2:31:30] bill. Last year,
[2:31:33] I think we
[2:31:36] just offered
[2:31:39] verbal testimony in
[2:31:42] support of the bill.
[2:31:43] >> have
[2:31:44] you talked to the public schools?
[2:31:45] >> yeah.
[2:31:48] are they supported?
[2:31:51] does it come with financing?
[2:31:54] this is probably where
[2:31:57] they have to bus the kids
[2:32:00] during the school hour to go to the
[2:32:02] pool and come back. It is not free.
[2:32:03] >> you
[2:32:06] know, it is explained to us that
[2:32:08] the curriculum can include pool time
[2:32:09] but it does not
[2:32:12] have to. It can literally
[2:32:15] just be classroom instruction
[2:32:18] about water safety.
[2:32:19] >>
[2:32:21] but it says swimming.
[2:32:24] yes.
[2:32:27] swimming course.
[2:32:33] it is a great thing if they do,
[2:32:36] but I am saying if the public school
[2:32:37] gets
[2:32:39] funding for that.
[2:32:45] even though it
[2:32:48] says swimming
[2:32:51] course
[2:32:53] doesn't mean they have to go to the
[2:32:54] pool.
[2:32:55] >> it
[2:32:57] is more of a
[2:33:00] safety course.
[2:33:09] it is about
[2:33:12] basically safety on
[2:33:15] the water.
[2:33:22] they want
[2:33:25] to be able to assist the
[2:33:28] sponsor, you
[2:33:31] know,
[2:33:34] talk about how it can
[2:33:37] be
[2:33:39] implemented without a pool or water-
[2:33:43] based approaches.
[2:33:50] we can get more information and have
[2:33:52] a more
[2:33:53] detailed presentation next week if
[2:33:55] you want, but we did not
[2:33:56] plan to do a position statement on
[2:33:58] this.
[2:34:00] we wanted to just interact with the
[2:34:01] sponsor and have
[2:34:03] you aware that we are going to interact
[2:34:04] with a sponsor.
[2:34:07] no need for a vote.
[2:34:08] >> it is great
[2:34:09] that you brought it before us. We
[2:34:10] are learning
[2:34:13] more about it.
[2:34:16] yeah.
[2:34:17] >> I
[2:34:18] wanted to mention something. I think that we
[2:34:19] do want to
[2:34:22] do a statement on it. I think
[2:34:24] that we have time to bring it back
[2:34:25] next week.
[2:34:28] we want to get a statement, and we
[2:34:29] want to get support on thethe bill.
[2:34:31] >> we will
[2:34:33] have more information when we bring
[2:34:34] back a
[2:34:35] draft position statement.
[2:34:36] >> often
[2:34:37] given
[2:34:40] that it affects both counties
[2:34:43] is there someone that could
[2:34:46] check our department
[2:34:49] of recreation.
[2:34:58] we can check with gabe
[2:35:01] or someone there.
[2:35:06] >> she is as it does not include swimming.
[2:35:09] it does make sense to include swimming,
[2:35:11] but it is not playing with the water.
[2:35:15] >> I think that it does say there
[2:35:19] are options.
[2:35:28] they will be
[2:35:30] participating in this in either event.
[2:35:34] we will find
[2:35:37] out --
[2:35:43] >> one
[2:35:46] last thing.
[2:35:51] can you check with the rec department
[2:35:52] and make sure
[2:35:54] they have seen this? I don't know
[2:35:55] if they
[2:35:57] weighed in last year? I am fine with
[2:35:58] it.
[2:36:01] I wanted to touch the
[2:36:04] bases.
[2:36:13] >> that's it.
[2:36:15] all we have.
[2:36:16] >> one more comment.
[2:36:19] >> yeah. Is this bill
[2:36:22] going to be
[2:36:25] mandatory with regards
[2:36:28] to the department
[2:36:31] of education?
[2:36:32] >>
[2:36:33] it would be a mandatory requirement
[2:36:34] they
[2:36:37] develop a curriculum. How
[2:36:40] they implement would depend on the
[2:36:42] local boards and schools, but again
[2:36:43] that is something
[2:36:46] that we want to help the
[2:36:49] sponsor with.
[2:36:52] >> I am
[2:36:55] against the bill.
[2:37:04] I don't think
[2:37:07] that it had
[2:37:10] it all. It is a distraction from focusing
[2:37:13] on the blueprint.
[2:37:14] >> okay. >>
[2:37:16] you will comecome
[2:37:19] next --what?
[2:37:21] >> we will get back to you next week
[2:37:22] with a
[2:37:24] bit more information and proposed
[2:37:25] language.
[2:37:26] >> great.
[2:37:28] thank you.
[2:37:31] thank
[2:37:34] you. This is the start of
[2:37:37] many, many
[2:37:40] discussions
[2:37:46] we are go to
[2:37:49] take a two-minute break and
[2:37:52] then start with the next
[2:37:55] item, number 5. Briefing
[2:37:58] community trends
[2:38:00] report, a look at montgomery county communities since 2010.
[2:38:01] thank you.
[2:42:14] >> we are
[2:42:17] on item number 5. A look at montgomery
[2:42:18] county
[2:42:20] community since 2010. Staff is providing a
[2:42:21] briefing to
[2:42:23] the board. We have james lee of the
[2:42:24] planning department this
[2:42:26] morning leading the presentation
[2:42:29] with his distinguished cast of teammates
[2:42:30] there.
[2:42:32] thank you.
[2:42:33] >> chair harris, members
[2:42:34] of
[2:42:35] the planning board thank you. I am
[2:42:38] james lee forecaster and
[2:42:41] demographic research andist with the
[2:42:42] strategic
[2:42:44] projects division. I have the team
[2:42:45] members
[2:42:47] here today for the
[2:42:50] project.
[2:42:53] lisa
[2:42:56] and bob and
[2:42:59] colin and the division
[2:43:01] chief, kerry mccarthy here today.
[2:43:02] for
[2:43:03] today's informational briefing for
[2:43:05] the planning board, we have
[2:43:07] the community trends report. A look
[2:43:08] at montgomery
[2:43:10] county communities since 2010. The
[2:43:11] new publication
[2:43:14] by the research and strategic projects
[2:43:15] division
[2:43:17] is the culmination of more than two
[2:43:18] years of work by
[2:43:20] the staff members here. We are delighted
[2:43:24] to bring it to
[2:43:27] you today.
[2:43:30] we
[2:43:32] will go over the project background
[2:43:33] and discuss
[2:43:35] key findings divided into place, people
[2:43:36] and
[2:43:38] housing. Then we will do a dash board
[2:43:39] demo.
[2:43:41] we will ask a planning boardmember
[2:43:42] to tell
[2:43:44] us which communities information you
[2:43:45] would like to see
[2:43:47] and will conclude with key points
[2:43:48] about the report
[2:43:51] and our analysis. We do
[2:43:54] have a long presentation so a
[2:43:57] fair warning here.
[2:44:02] first of all, let's start with the
[2:44:06] project origins, goals
[2:44:08] and methods. Work started in 2024,
[2:44:09] and it is
[2:44:12] the research division's first
[2:44:14] comprehensive study of four small areas
[2:44:15] of the
[2:44:17] county. Staff previously completed
[2:44:20] county-wide level analysis for master
[2:44:21] planning
[2:44:24] efforts, the report provides
[2:44:26] a detailed look all parts of the county
[2:44:28] including places where the master plans have not recently
[2:44:30] been conducted.
[2:44:35] while the report is new to montgomery
[2:44:36] county, we
[2:44:39] drew inspiration from
[2:44:40] organizations across the united states
[2:44:42] with
[2:44:44] existing level products. For example
[2:44:45] we
[2:44:48] looked at information from
[2:44:49] the new york university center for real
[2:44:51] estate and urban policy. We
[2:44:54] also looked at information from houston,
[2:44:56] texas, portland, oregon, the city
[2:44:57] of
[2:45:00] chicago, et cetera.
[2:45:02] we set out to do the project and we
[2:45:03] had several goals
[2:45:05] in mind. First, document changing
[2:45:09] conditions objectively. Second, inform
[2:45:12] policy makers in the public of local
[2:45:13] trends
[2:45:14] and patterns across the county over
[2:45:15] time, and
[2:45:17] third support policy and other decision
[2:45:18] making with useful
[2:45:21] and easily accessible and
[2:45:24] understandable data. The report
[2:45:26] consists of an online pdf publication
[2:45:27] with
[2:45:30] 38 community profiles --
[2:45:32] 37 communities and one for the county
[2:45:33] as a whole
[2:45:36] and
[2:45:39] an interactive dashboard. I
[2:45:41] will go over the data sources sources
[2:45:42] for report.
[2:45:45] we used multiple data sources
[2:45:48] and analyzed 300 variables and
[2:45:51] more
[2:45:57] than 30,000
[2:46:00] data points. Estimates for 2010, 2016,
[2:46:01] 2022
[2:46:02] which we used for all demographic
[2:46:03] and
[2:46:06] most of the housing information and
[2:46:09] used montgomery county
[2:46:11] administrative data reflecting conditions
[2:46:12] as of 2024.
[2:46:14] the sources include the maryland state
[2:46:18] department of assessment
[2:46:21] s and taxation property
[2:46:24] data. We looked at housing type and
[2:46:26] year built information as well as
[2:46:27] land
[2:46:29] use and development information. We
[2:46:31] also pulled informationinformation
[2:46:33] montgomery parks
[2:46:36] for parkland, local state and national
[2:46:38] parkland. Montgomery county office
[2:46:39] of
[2:46:42] technology and enterprise.
[2:46:48] also
[2:46:51] we pulled information from
[2:46:54] montgomery county public
[2:46:57] schools.
[2:47:00] finally we
[2:47:03] had private
[2:47:06] sector information.
[2:47:09] in addition to
[2:47:12] the land use due to
[2:47:15] lack of available historical data
[2:47:16] and
[2:47:17] slow changes in characteristics of
[2:47:18] the
[2:47:21] period studied.
[2:47:27] a key question to address, how do
[2:47:30] we define
[2:47:33] communities.
[2:47:36] a community is often
[2:47:39] subjectively defined.
[2:47:42] however
[2:47:45] a quantitative analysis
[2:47:48] needs set boundaries
[2:47:51] over time. We see
[2:47:54] how each of them divides up
[2:47:56] montgomery county. The county has
[2:47:57] a lot of
[2:48:01] boundary types. Census
[2:48:04] bureau
[2:48:07] boundaries. Census designated
[2:48:09] places and municipalities as shown
[2:48:10] on the
[2:48:13] left, and we looked at the
[2:48:15] own master plan areas and the areas
[2:48:19] themselves and other
[2:48:22] geographies
[2:48:25] and zip codes. We consulted with
[2:48:28] planning staff to understand
[2:48:31] community boundaries
[2:48:34] and sentiments.
[2:48:41] do residents consideration themselves
[2:48:43] as residents
[2:48:46] of silver spring,
[2:48:48] bethesda, et cetera and how do the
[2:48:52] existing boundaries for existing geographies line
[2:48:55] up with
[2:48:58] people's perceptions?
[2:49:01] ultimately our efforts to
[2:49:04] define areas that define
[2:49:07] communities for this analysis
[2:49:10] resulted in
[2:49:13] 37 community trend areas as shown
[2:49:16] in the map.
[2:49:25] we
[2:49:27] wanted complete coverage of the county.
[2:49:31] we
[2:49:34] needed concrete, consistent non-
[2:49:37] overlapping boundaries.
[2:49:40] it requires information for the same set
[2:49:43] of areas over time. We needed a
[2:49:44] reasonable number of distinct communities
[2:49:46] to analyze. If you have too
[2:49:49] many areas, that means bigger areas
[2:49:52] that could divide
[2:49:55] up distinct community
[2:49:58] s
[2:50:01] ies
[2:50:04] too many means multiple small area
[2:50:07] that may introduce noise into
[2:50:10] the analysis.
[2:50:16] in addition
[2:50:19] our data
[2:50:21] available at the appropriate geographic
[2:50:25] levels. Really to satisfy
[2:50:28] the
[2:50:31] criteria we
[2:50:34] aggregated census block
[2:50:37] groups.
[2:50:46] we also presented
[2:50:49] them sbreshlly to planning department
[2:50:52] leadership for additional
[2:50:55] feedback.
[2:51:01] >> let me
[2:51:04] go back to the
[2:51:06] map itself. They are included in this map.
[2:51:16] we question
[2:51:19] is how do we describe
[2:51:22] these communities. What indicators
[2:51:23] do we
[2:51:25] want to use for this report? We focussed
[2:51:26] on
[2:51:28] land use, demographics and
[2:51:30] housing characteristics and considered
[2:51:31] which
[2:51:34] characteristics are the most commonly
[2:51:35] reported
[2:51:36] and typically ones from a planning
[2:51:37] perspective.
[2:51:40] also our
[2:51:43] data available over
[2:51:46] time they are
[2:51:49] the
[2:51:52] indicator s and what is a reasonable
[2:51:54] number of indicators to cover a range
[2:51:58] of topics?
[2:52:01] not
[2:52:04] so meaningful information is repetitive
[2:52:07] and has no
[2:52:10] significant value.
[2:52:16] we organized them into place, people
[2:52:18] and housing. For the place people,
[2:52:19] we focused
[2:52:22] on land use and development information
[2:52:23] to
[2:52:24] describe the built environment and the
[2:52:25] natural environment as well
[2:52:27] as publicly accessible facilities
[2:52:28] and
[2:52:31] amenities that are offered to the
[2:52:32] broader
[2:52:33] community, different types of services
[2:52:34] including those related
[2:52:38] to physical safety, health care,
[2:52:39] education, recreation and food security.
[2:52:47] the people
[2:52:49] theme encompasses the demographics
[2:52:52] of residents, racial diversity, english
[2:52:56] usage and ability,
[2:52:58] household composition, economic status,
[2:52:59] indicators
[2:53:02] such as education
[2:53:05] and income.
[2:53:20] housing type and age. Homeownership
[2:53:23] and housing
[2:53:26] affordability indicators.
[2:53:29] these provide
[2:53:32] a picture of
[2:53:35] t
[2:53:38] he current
[2:53:40] housing landscape and are compared
[2:53:41] across
[2:53:44] jurisdictions and within a
[2:53:47] nationwide context.
[2:53:56] >> for the
[2:53:59] record I will be first starting with
[2:54:02] the key
[2:54:05] findings. This explores two
[2:54:08] main components. I will
[2:54:10] walk through the major findings at
[2:54:11] the
[2:54:14] county level and then into specific
[2:54:20] ctas. It
[2:54:22] reports each environment inin 2024
[2:54:23] when
[2:54:26] the data was
[2:54:29] collected.
[2:54:32] we looked at eight kinds of places
[2:54:35] of interest. In total, in 2024 the
[2:54:38] county had 37 fire stations, 23 police
[2:54:41] facilities, 31 health care
[2:54:43] facilities, hospitals, treatment centers.
[2:54:44] over
[2:54:47] 500 places of worship. 200
[2:54:49] public schools. 50 recreation centers.
[2:54:52] 22 libraries. 238 grocery stores which
[2:54:53] we define
[2:54:54] as super markets and don't include convenient stores.
[2:55:05] we found while places of interest
[2:55:07] are distributed across the county
[2:55:08] larger
[2:55:11] and more density have
[2:55:14] a higher concentration of the amenities.
[2:55:16] rockville on the left has a far greater
[2:55:17] number
[2:55:20] of facilities and amenities,
[2:55:23] 101 than
[2:55:26] trevillo, only one place of worship
[2:55:27] withins
[2:55:29] it boundaries. Rockville has a
[2:55:32] population of
[2:55:35] 67,000 to 10,800. The supply
[2:55:38] of
[2:55:41] amenities
[2:55:47] places of interest are
[2:55:50] often clustered.
[2:55:59] land use in the
[2:56:02] county. Three major land uses cover
[2:56:05] 77% of the
[2:56:08] county's area.
[2:56:11] that is
[2:56:14] followed by parks and open space and
[2:56:17] agculture
[2:56:20] land at
[2:56:23] 23%.
[2:56:32] accounting for all
[2:56:35] of the land use
[2:56:38] types, 85% is already developed
[2:56:40] or unavailable for new development.
[2:56:41] that begs the question
[2:56:43] of how we can continue to build in
[2:56:44] the
[2:56:47] county. Growth
[2:56:49] relies on previously developments,
[2:56:50] parking lots
[2:56:52] or leveraging rights to expand existing buildings.
[2:57:01] each land use type. We will start
[2:57:02] with residential land. It
[2:57:05] is notable that single family detached
[2:57:08] homes occupy a
[2:57:11] disproportionate amount of residential
[2:57:14] land comprising 45% of the housing
[2:57:17] stock take up 91% of
[2:57:20] residential land area.
[2:57:35] the county must now make
[2:57:38] the most of its available
[2:57:41] space. The challenge is to find room
[2:57:45] for housing.
[2:57:53] looking at residential land use at the
[2:57:57] cta level.
[2:58:03] single family
[2:58:05] detached home occupy the greater level
[2:58:06] at
[2:58:09] 55% of their
[2:58:12] land area each.
[2:58:15] leesure
[2:58:18] world has the greatest share
[2:58:21] at 27% and 23% respectively.
[2:58:24] in terms of number
[2:58:27] of
[2:58:30] units
[2:58:42] a
[2:58:43] closer look at nonresidential land uses
[2:58:45] in the county.
[2:58:47] commercial development, institutional
[2:58:48] facilities
[2:58:50] and cultural properties. The office
[2:58:51] and the
[2:58:53] retail development occupy less than
[2:58:57] 2%. Institutional
[2:59:00] and community facilities such
[2:59:03] as
[2:59:06] schools,
[2:59:09] federal properties and
[2:59:11] cultural properties only take up 1%
[2:59:12] of
[2:59:14] the county's land use. The map on
[2:59:15] the right shows
[2:59:17] where the land use is located in the
[2:59:18] county with
[2:59:19] commercial activities concentrated
[2:59:21] along the I-
[2:59:24] 270 corridor.
[2:59:39] north sda
[2:59:42] has the most.
[2:59:54] in terms
[2:59:57] of retail
[3:00:00] activity,
[3:00:03] in mapping the
[3:00:06] institutional and community
[3:00:07] facilities, we noted certain parcels
[3:00:09] that
[3:00:12] were large.
[3:00:15] these
[3:00:18] are prominent federal
[3:00:21] properties.
[3:00:27] the large parcel is
[3:00:30] the fda.
[3:00:39] so the
[3:00:41] policy implication is that while federal
[3:00:42] facilities have been
[3:00:45] an important part of the land use,
[3:00:48] recent changes in the federal
[3:00:51] government's
[3:00:54] operations
[3:00:57] can possibly
[3:01:03] identify other spaces.
[3:01:06] the county has
[3:01:09] a considerable amount
[3:01:12] of green space.
[3:01:15] aren't 23%
[3:01:18] of the county's land is
[3:01:21] used
[3:01:24] for agricultural
[3:01:30] propers.
[3:01:33] stream valley parks.
[3:01:35] state parks. Reservoirs and water
[3:01:36] sheds
[3:01:39] owned by wssc. We included land
[3:01:41] for outdoor public recreation and
[3:01:42] natural
[3:01:44] resource management under our definition
[3:01:45] of parkland.
[3:01:48] the county has a tree canopy of
[3:01:51] 47%, the percentage
[3:01:54] of land shaded by
[3:01:57] trees.
[3:02:03] now, going deeper into
[3:02:05] environmental land use across the
[3:02:06] ctas.
[3:02:09] 85% of it is within
[3:02:12] the
[3:02:15] agricultural
[3:02:18] reserve. Rock
[3:02:21] hill orchard. Nearly every community
[3:02:22] has
[3:02:24] one park, the share of the total land
[3:02:27] ranges from 1. 5% or 11
[3:02:30] acres to 38% or over
[3:02:33] 7,000 acres
[3:02:36] in clarksburg.
[3:02:39] unsurprisingly
[3:02:42] commercial areas have greater
[3:02:46] tree colors.
[3:02:52] 25% to 59% in the
[3:02:55] more residential sandy
[3:02:58] springs.
[3:03:01] further analysis
[3:03:04] by land use may
[3:03:07] be helpful.
[3:03:16] >> this is
[3:03:19] interesting so far. I
[3:03:22] had a question about how we are
[3:03:25] classifying ag
[3:03:28] land. Are we
[3:03:31] using the current
[3:03:34] use
[3:03:40] or are we talking about land
[3:03:43] in production.
[3:03:49] I am just kind of
[3:03:52] curious. 70,000 is less
[3:03:55] than the ag reserve
[3:03:58] which makes
[3:04:01] sense. I am just
[3:04:02] curious how we are calculating that.
[3:04:04] all of
[3:04:06] the land use data we use the parcel
[3:04:07] level
[3:04:10] file. These are using the land
[3:04:12] use category that our parcel layer
[3:04:13] file has. It
[3:04:15] is not necessarily specific land which
[3:04:19] is used for
[3:04:25] agricultural purposes. It is coded
[3:04:27] as that in our parcel file.
[3:04:28] >> okay.
[3:04:31] thanks. That
[3:04:33] makes sense.
[3:04:34] >> in regards to tree
[3:04:37] canopy, I am pleased to see
[3:04:40] 47% is
[3:04:43] covered with
[3:04:46] trees. Where there are more single
[3:04:48] family units you see more tree covers.
[3:04:52] is that true or is that
[3:04:53] in regard to the office space?
[3:04:54] >>
[3:04:55] we are
[3:04:58] seeing it at a general level and in
[3:04:59] the more residential level there is
[3:05:01] a higher percentage of tree
[3:05:04] canopies.
[3:05:22] where is the other
[3:05:25] 15%?
[3:05:31] there could be
[3:05:34] other parcels in
[3:05:37] the county coded as
[3:05:43] agriculture.
[3:05:44] >> you know
[3:05:46] one of them.
[3:05:59] I am sure that there are others too.
[3:06:10] >> the last
[3:06:13] takeaway is around complete
[3:06:16] communities. This envisions
[3:06:18] communities to have a vibrant mix
[3:06:19] of
[3:06:22] housing types
[3:06:25] and employment.
[3:06:31] this concept reappeared
[3:06:34] as a theme when examining land
[3:06:37] use and
[3:06:40] community facilities.
[3:06:46] the map on the left is north
[3:06:49] bethesda with
[3:06:52] many services spread out across the
[3:06:53] area.
[3:06:55] the other is connecticut, a
[3:06:57] lower density area and fewer of the
[3:06:58] services here are available. Therefore
[3:07:01] it is important to note
[3:07:04] a complete community must be adjusted
[3:07:05] based
[3:07:06] on factors including location and
[3:07:07] development
[3:07:10] density. Now I will pass it to james to
[3:07:13] go through the people findings.
[3:07:19] >> now we will discuss key
[3:07:22] finding findings
[3:07:25] under the people theme. We will focus
[3:07:26] on
[3:07:28] age, racial diversity, english usage
[3:07:29] and
[3:07:31] ability, education and income.
[3:07:34] we analyzed changes from 2010
[3:07:37] to 2016.
[3:07:40] these characteristics are
[3:07:43] commonly analyzed and
[3:07:49] compared in our
[3:07:52] master planning work
[3:07:54] we look at the pieces of information
[3:07:55] to see who lives
[3:07:58] in the plan
[3:08:01] area.
[3:08:08] I will walk through some of the
[3:08:11] major findings.
[3:08:17] montgomery count
[3:08:20] I increased by 12% from 2010 to
[3:08:23] 2022.
[3:08:26] that was for a gain
[3:08:29] of 110
[3:08:32] residents.
[3:08:42] these have the largest population
[3:08:44] growth and are
[3:08:47] among the top ten in
[3:08:50] percentage growth.
[3:08:56] they gained about
[3:08:59] 52% of the
[3:09:02] county's growth.
[3:09:03] clarksburg experienced the greatest
[3:09:05] population growth.
[3:09:08] 18,000 people or
[3:09:11] 137% increase.
[3:09:29] particularly outside
[3:09:31] of places here where population growth has
[3:09:32] been concentrated.
[3:09:38] let's look
[3:09:41] at the information by age group.
[3:09:44] the county's population has continued
[3:09:47] to trend older. The
[3:09:50] county's population in the 65
[3:09:53] and older group increased by
[3:09:56] 55%.
[3:09:58] conversely young populations grew
[3:09:59] at a
[3:10:02] much slower rate. County-wide, the
[3:10:03] young
[3:10:05] adult population 18 to 34
[3:10:08] grew by by adding more than
[3:10:11] 15,000 residents.
[3:10:20] if you look at the graph where
[3:10:23] we have zero to
[3:10:26] four year s
[3:10:32] s that population was
[3:10:35] growing while the under age
[3:10:38] 5 and under climbed to
[3:10:41] 2%.
[3:10:47] older adults made up
[3:10:50] an increasing share of the population
[3:10:53] county-wide.
[3:10:56] growing from 12% to
[3:10:59] 16% of
[3:11:02] all residents.
[3:11:05] here we see
[3:11:07] seven communities where the residents
[3:11:08] 65
[3:11:11] and older
[3:11:14] doubled.
[3:11:26] >> this means people have
[3:11:29] aged.
[3:11:30] >> it could be people
[3:11:32] aging in
[3:11:35] place. It could be older
[3:11:38] folks moving in. We do
[3:11:41] not have the
[3:11:44] information
[3:11:53] .
[3:11:54] >>
[3:11:56] it is only 12
[3:11:59] years. You are experiencing
[3:12:01] a percentage increase in the amount
[3:12:02] of age.
[3:12:05] that indicates an influx of
[3:12:08] older aged population pushing
[3:12:11] up. There has to be some aging in
[3:12:12] place but
[3:12:13] that indicates to me it is coming
[3:12:14] from an
[3:12:17] older population than we were previously
[3:12:20] getting. Going back to slide 22, the
[3:12:21] best explanation
[3:12:23] for that slide is young families cannot
[3:12:25] afford toto live here information.
[3:12:26] if we keep going
[3:12:29] the way that we are going we are
[3:12:32] not going to have young families the
[3:12:33] way that
[3:12:35] we used to. I couldn't afford to
[3:12:38] live here now.
[3:12:50] >> it is when the start of the
[3:12:54] baby boomer generation moved
[3:12:56] into the 65 plus age group.
[3:12:57] >> yes.
[3:12:58] that
[3:13:00] is what I was going
[3:13:03] to say.
[3:13:12] people are
[3:13:13] having less children. That is what
[3:13:18] it seems.
[3:13:21] >> because it is expensive to
[3:13:24] have them.
[3:13:30] the best
[3:13:32] and most consistent explanation is
[3:13:33] it is really
[3:13:36] expensive and younger families
[3:13:39] can't afford it.
[3:13:45] the cost of day care is more than
[3:13:47] my mortgage. The cost of my mortgage
[3:13:51] is insane.
[3:13:56] we can try to explain it allall want.
[3:14:00] it is cost.
[3:14:02] you are drawing the conclusion. They
[3:14:03] are sitting here to
[3:14:05] tell us.
[3:14:06] >> we will talk about children
[3:14:07] here in
[3:14:09] a little bit.
[3:14:15] let me wrap up the portion about
[3:14:18] aging. Looking at
[3:14:20] how communities are aging, only two
[3:14:24] ctas had more
[3:14:27] than 20%
[3:14:30] of
[3:14:33] residents 65 and older. On the right by
[3:14:36] 2022 the number of
[3:14:39] communities with more than
[3:14:42] 20% of residents included to
[3:14:44] seven. These are in different parts
[3:14:45] of the county from
[3:14:47] a couple of communities in the north
[3:14:51] to others further south such as
[3:14:54] potomac. Given the trend of an
[3:14:56] aging population and across many communities
[3:14:57] this
[3:15:00] indicates a
[3:15:03] potentially growing demand.
[3:15:06] certain services, infrastructure,
[3:15:07] housing. You can see it from the map
[3:15:09] on the right, some
[3:15:11] of the communities with the larger
[3:15:12] concentrations of
[3:15:15] the older adult population are in
[3:15:18] more remote parts of
[3:15:21] the
[3:15:22] county lacking important facilities
[3:15:24] and other health
[3:15:27] care facilities.
[3:15:29] it may take an additional effort to
[3:15:30] support
[3:15:33] the older
[3:15:36] adult population. We will get to
[3:15:39] children. We are working through through
[3:15:42] age groups. Communities
[3:15:44] have a wide variation in the amount
[3:15:45] of
[3:15:47] changes their young adult population
[3:15:48] of
[3:15:50] the 18-34. Three communities with
[3:15:51] the
[3:15:54] highest and the lowest change in absolute
[3:15:57] terms. On the left side of the chart
[3:16:03] silver
[3:16:06] springs, rockville.
[3:16:21] they are sizeable
[3:16:24] numbers.
[3:16:33] tacoma park, germantown
[3:16:36] and east
[3:16:39] silver spring.
[3:16:42] the
[3:16:45] working population is a
[3:16:48] critical part of the
[3:16:51] county's workforce.
[3:16:54] we see a
[3:16:57] slowly growing young young
[3:17:00] population.
[3:17:06] it could really present aa for
[3:17:09] the labor market.
[3:17:21] from 2010 to
[3:17:24] 2022 the number of households
[3:17:27] in the
[3:17:30] county
[3:17:33] overall grew.
[3:17:36] the
[3:17:39] this trend contrasts with the higher
[3:17:41] growth rates of other household types that you see on
[3:17:42] the graph.
[3:17:51] with the rate of
[3:17:54] households with children declined
[3:17:57] from 34% to
[3:18:00] 32% from 2010
[3:18:03] to 2022 here we show the three
[3:18:05] communities with the largest shifts
[3:18:06] in the percentage of
[3:18:08] households with children in the upward
[3:18:09] and the downward
[3:18:11] directions. Many communities had a
[3:18:13] declining percentages
[3:18:15] of households with children on the right-
[3:18:16] hand side
[3:18:19] due to weak growth or
[3:18:22] declines in the
[3:18:25] children population.
[3:18:34] you look on the
[3:18:37] left side of the chart, we
[3:18:40] have three community
[3:18:43] s
[3:18:47] ies this is due to stronger growth
[3:18:49] in the children
[3:18:52] population relative to the
[3:18:55] children population itself.
[3:18:58] given the trends
[3:19:01] that we see
[3:19:04] here it points
[3:19:07] to a lower potential command for
[3:19:10] facilities like schools
[3:19:13] and other
[3:19:16] s and more long-
[3:19:19] term concerns.
[3:19:22] I am still
[3:19:25] focused on
[3:19:28] households.
[3:19:34] higher percentages of families
[3:19:37] with children are spread across
[3:19:40] the county.
[3:19:46] clarksburg
[3:19:49] in the north
[3:19:52] to further south.
[3:19:55] on
[3:19:58] the right there are
[3:20:01] 11cta ben orr single
[3:20:03] person households. Clustered along
[3:20:07] our urbanized corridors. Up
[3:20:10] I-270, u.s.
[3:20:13] 29 and metro
[3:20:16] red line.
[3:20:19] including all of the
[3:20:22] burdens that border dc like
[3:20:25] chevy chase and
[3:20:28] silver springs.
[3:20:31] the county has
[3:20:34] growing racial diversity. After
[3:20:36] 2010 montgomery county's population
[3:20:37] became a
[3:20:40] majority of people
[3:20:43] with color.
[3:20:51] they experienced significant growth
[3:20:52] with the exception
[3:20:55] of the population which declined
[3:20:58] by 9%.
[3:21:04] the hispanic
[3:21:07] population had the
[3:21:10] largest gain with
[3:21:13] 60,000 residents.
[3:21:16] it was more than triple the
[3:21:19] growth rate.
[3:21:25] the large bar on the
[3:21:28] right
[3:21:31] includes people with the highest
[3:21:34] increase of
[3:21:37] 108%. The
[3:21:40] growth in this group started at
[3:21:43] smaller numbers than the
[3:21:46] other groups.
[3:21:58] in
[3:22:01] 201018 communities had a
[3:22:04] population with the majority of
[3:22:07] people in color. It increased to 22
[3:22:08] by
[3:22:10] 2022.
[3:22:25] however communities
[3:22:28] vary widely in their racial composition.
[3:22:30] this shows the top three communities
[3:22:31] in terms of
[3:22:34] the percentage
[3:22:37] of each major racial
[3:22:40] or ethnic group in
[3:22:43] 2022. We see the communities with
[3:22:46] the
[3:22:49] highest percentages of black residents.
[3:22:52] the highest percentage
[3:22:55] of asian
[3:22:58] residents. In the middle of the county
[3:22:59] we see
[3:23:01] the highest percentages of
[3:23:03] hispanic residents, the ones in blue.
[3:23:04] connecticut, there
[3:23:07] are no
[3:23:10] crossroads and glen
[3:23:20] mont. So, given
[3:23:22] the increasing racial diversity across
[3:23:23] the
[3:23:26] county in many of the
[3:23:28] communities, this trend really indicates
[3:23:30] a growing demand for specific services
[3:23:32] that
[3:23:35] may need to be culturally
[3:23:36] sensitive, geographically concentrated
[3:23:38] and tailored to
[3:23:41] the needs of certain
[3:23:44] groups.
[3:23:49] making sure different populations
[3:23:53] do not face significant barriers
[3:23:56] to accessing the facilities and
[3:23:59] amenities. Now to
[3:24:02] the topic
[3:24:05] of
[3:24:06] english language usage and ability.
[3:24:08] this is related
[3:24:10] to the growing diversity here in the
[3:24:11] county.
[3:24:14] montgomery county gainedgained
[3:24:17] residents who speak a nonenglish
[3:24:19] language at home with 26% increase
[3:24:20] from 2010
[3:24:23] to
[3:24:25] 2022. More people reported speaking
[3:24:28] english, less than very well. Closely
[3:24:29] matching the
[3:24:32] 12% in the
[3:24:35] total population.
[3:24:44] with the
[3:24:46] residents speaking a nonenglish language
[3:24:47] at
[3:24:50] home, it increased to
[3:24:53] 38% to 42% from 2010 to 222.
[3:24:56] as I mentioned it before,
[3:24:57] growing racial diversity is related
[3:24:59] to the
[3:25:01] growing number of residents speaking
[3:25:02] a nonenglish
[3:25:04] language at home, and the growth can
[3:25:05] be seen at the community
[3:25:08] level. On the map on the left
[3:25:11] in
[3:25:14] 2010, only
[3:25:16] three communities were the majority
[3:25:17] of residents
[3:25:18] speaking a nonenglish language at
[3:25:20] home.
[3:25:23] connecticut, crossroads, glenmont
[3:25:25] and silver spring. By 2022, the map
[3:25:26] on the
[3:25:29] right has grown
[3:25:32] to 90.
[3:25:36] notably some of the communities are
[3:25:38] the same ones with
[3:25:41] the highest percentages of hispanic
[3:25:42] or
[3:25:43] black residents as seen in the map from two slides ago.
[3:25:56] to education and income, there
[3:25:59] is a clear relationship between these
[3:26:02] two indicators which the maps
[3:26:05] show. Specifically we can see a
[3:26:07] highly educated population correlates
[3:26:08] with higher incomes.
[3:26:11] on the left,
[3:26:14] six communities clustered have the
[3:26:15] highest
[3:26:16] educational attainment levels in 2022.
[3:26:17] in all of
[3:26:20] these more than 75% of adults
[3:26:23] ages 25 and over had at least a bachelor's
[3:26:26] degree. They had a
[3:26:29] bachelor's degree or they may
[3:26:32] have had a graduate or a
[3:26:35] professional degree.
[3:26:41] it is well above the county wide number
[3:26:42] for
[3:26:44] more than
[3:26:47] 60%. The
[3:26:50] map on the right, the same set of
[3:26:51] communities
[3:26:53] have the highest
[3:26:56] average household incomes in
[3:26:59] 2022. All of these communities in
[3:27:00] the southwest
[3:27:02] part of the
[3:27:05] county,
[3:27:08] potomac,
[3:27:14] last slide in the people section.
[3:27:15] meanwhile,
[3:27:16] if we look at the communities with
[3:27:17] the lowest
[3:27:19] educational attainment and income
[3:27:20] levels there is a
[3:27:22] similar correlation between the two
[3:27:23] indicators. On the
[3:27:25] left, nine communities scattered across
[3:27:26] the county had
[3:27:29] less than 50% of adults 25 and over
[3:27:32] with at least a bachelor's degree
[3:27:33] in
[3:27:35] 2022. Six
[3:27:38] of those community ies appear on the
[3:27:39] map on
[3:27:41] the right. That shows the eight communities
[3:27:42] with
[3:27:44] the lowest average household income
[3:27:45] in
[3:27:47] 2022, all below
[3:27:50] $125,000.
[3:27:53] despite
[3:27:56] lower incomes, all
[3:27:58] have noteworthy educational attainment
[3:27:59] levels. East silver
[3:28:02] spring, flower hill and montgomery
[3:28:03] village, about
[3:28:05] 40% of the adults ages 25 and over
[3:28:08] had at least a bachelor's degree.
[3:28:11] that exceeds the national raterate
[3:28:14] 34%.
[3:28:17] given the wide range, many of
[3:28:20] the communities would benefit from having
[3:28:21] more
[3:28:22] opportunities for higher education
[3:28:24] that can help
[3:28:25] residents find higher paying jobs
[3:28:29] and locating educational and training
[3:28:30] facilities within
[3:28:33] less economically
[3:28:36] advantaged communities.
[3:28:39] that would allow
[3:28:40] residents access to higher education.
[3:28:42] now, I will
[3:28:44] hand it off for the key findings on the housing
[3:28:45] section.
[3:28:48] >> james,
[3:28:50] this is our last key findings bucket
[3:28:51] with
[3:28:53] housing. As a reminder for the topic
[3:28:54] we looked
[3:28:56] at data on housing stocks, housing
[3:29:00] typology and age, ownership
[3:29:02] age, housing value cost and cost burden.
[3:29:05] similar to the people indicators we
[3:29:09] analyzed
[3:29:10] temporal changes from 2010 to 2016
[3:29:12] to 2022.
[3:29:15] most of the
[3:29:18] indicators are from the
[3:29:21] five-year estimate.
[3:29:24] I will follow a similar
[3:29:27] structure of providing county-
[3:29:28] level information and then diving
[3:29:30] into cta level data.
[3:29:32] housing growth for the county over
[3:29:33] the past
[3:29:35] several decades it is evident the
[3:29:36] county
[3:29:38] is seeing more multi family than single
[3:29:42] family housing growth.
[3:29:45] construction peaked
[3:29:48] in the 1980s. Since
[3:29:50] 2010, 12% of the existing housing
[3:29:51] stock, a
[3:29:54] little more
[3:29:56] than 47,000 units have been built.
[3:29:57] of
[3:30:00] the units built after 2010,
[3:30:03] 61% in multi family
[3:30:06] and 29% as single family
[3:30:08] detached homes. Most built recently
[3:30:12] are larger high rise rather than
[3:30:14] smaller garden style buildings. Speaks
[3:30:15] to
[3:30:17] a policy indication around the need
[3:30:18] for diverse
[3:30:20] housing units to help people remain
[3:30:21] in the communities as
[3:30:24] their housing needs change.
[3:30:30] we can look
[3:30:33] at the average age
[3:30:36] of
[3:30:38] housing type. Townhouses and multi
[3:30:39] family
[3:30:41] units are younger with average ages
[3:30:42] of 35 to
[3:30:45] 37 respectively. The map shows
[3:30:47] the pattern of housing development
[3:30:48] in the county.
[3:30:51] tacoma
[3:30:54] park, silver spring, kensington
[3:30:57] as showed on the map have the oldest
[3:31:00] housing units and the lighter
[3:31:02] shade found in great seneca and clarksburg.
[3:31:05] they have seen most of the growth since
[3:31:06] 2010.
[3:31:18] these maps show where thethe
[3:31:21] housing has grown. Clarksburg had
[3:31:22] the most
[3:31:23] single family and overall growth since
[3:31:24] 2010 with
[3:31:27] a total of 5,500
[3:31:29] single family units accounting for
[3:31:30] 88% of
[3:31:33] the housing production
[3:31:36] during this time.
[3:31:45] as the
[3:31:48] housing stock
[3:31:51] expanded homeownership ates
[3:31:54] remain an important
[3:31:57] issue. A change that can be
[3:32:00] explained by multi family
[3:32:03] development.
[3:32:06] in accordance with the
[3:32:09] trend renter occupied households
[3:32:12] increased from 24%
[3:32:15] to
[3:32:18] 31% in 2022.
[3:32:21] in 2010 there were only three
[3:32:24] ctas were
[3:32:27] er occupied households were the
[3:32:30] majority. By 2022
[3:32:33] the number increased to five ctas
[3:32:34] with
[3:32:36] north bethesda and seneca
[3:32:39] being the two. While they were not
[3:32:40] renter
[3:32:42] households the majority of
[3:32:45] ctas, germantown, bethesda
[3:32:48] and rockville
[3:32:51] saw a significant increase
[3:32:54] in this time.
[3:32:57] it still remains a majority
[3:33:00] owner
[3:33:03] occupied, related to the
[3:33:09] single
[3:33:12] family homes.
[3:33:15] communities such as
[3:33:18] travilah and upper rock creek. These
[3:33:19] are the
[3:33:21] bars on the far left of the graph.
[3:33:24] conversely those with lower percentage
[3:33:25] such
[3:33:26] as silver spring and great seneca
[3:33:27] had significantly
[3:33:31] lower homeownership rates of
[3:33:34] 33% and 19% respectively.
[3:33:36] while the planning response can't
[3:33:37] dictate housing
[3:33:40] tenure, we are embarking on further
[3:33:42] needs to determine whether there is
[3:33:46] more need for more for sale or
[3:33:49] rental housing.
[3:33:51] now I will discuss housing affordability
[3:33:58] indicators.
[3:34:04] this
[3:34:07] is compared to the national value
[3:34:10] of $261,000. This is
[3:34:13] lower than the lowest
[3:34:16] cta average
[3:34:19] value.
[3:34:25] >> it is all
[3:34:28] home value.
[3:34:29] >>
[3:34:31] everything.
[3:34:37] 300,000 to
[3:34:40] 500,000 was the
[3:34:43] lower
[3:34:46] average.
[3:34:49] up here is highlights where home
[3:34:51] values are growing and where they
[3:34:52] remained
[3:34:53] relatively unchanged. Communities
[3:34:55] in blue experienced the
[3:34:58] greatest increase in home
[3:34:59] values. Their growth rates exceed
[3:35:01] that of the
[3:35:04] county, 27% between 2010 and
[3:35:07] 2022. The high income areas
[3:35:10] of chevy chase and bethesda and
[3:35:12] areare to employment centers reforming
[3:35:13] the
[3:35:15] need to access places of work through
[3:35:16] transportation networks
[3:35:19] and diversify the location of
[3:35:22] employment centers across the county.
[3:35:24] communities in orange saw little to
[3:35:25] no growth
[3:35:28] and include damascus,
[3:35:31] leesure world and burtonsville.
[3:35:37] a look at average housing costs.
[3:35:39] as seen by the graphs housing cost
[3:35:40] for
[3:35:42] renters shown on the left in orange
[3:35:43] increased at
[3:35:46] more than 2. 5 times that of
[3:35:48] homeowners shown on right in the blue.
[3:35:49] this increase
[3:35:51] for renters out placed enflation during
[3:35:52] the period.
[3:35:55] the trend is contributing to
[3:35:58] rising inequality
[3:36:01] and rising house
[3:36:04] affects renters.
[3:36:13] a closer look at renter
[3:36:19] occupied households. A subset of communities with
[3:36:22] at least 25% renter occupied
[3:36:24] households. While some communities
[3:36:28] including redland-shady
[3:36:31] grove, chevy chase and takoma
[3:36:34] park, others experienced
[3:36:37] below average around 29% increases
[3:36:38] in
[3:36:40] rent. Great seneca,
[3:36:43] glenmont and
[3:36:46] fairland.
[3:36:49] now
[3:36:52] colin issing to give a demo of all
[3:36:53] of
[3:36:54] the data that you just heard and more.
[3:37:16] >> good afternoon. For the
[3:37:19] record I
[3:37:22] am colin
[3:37:28] m
[3:37:31] cnamaraa. This is
[3:37:34] 37ctas allowing users to visualize
[3:37:36] and compare information about place,
[3:37:37] people,
[3:37:39] housing at both the county and the
[3:37:40] community level. I
[3:37:42] will walk through the main tabs and
[3:37:43] highlight
[3:37:46] how the tool supports planning and
[3:37:47] policy
[3:37:48] discussions. We will start where we
[3:37:49] are right now on the general
[3:37:50] tab, the dashboard's landing page.
[3:37:55] by default it
[3:37:58] displays county-wide data at the top
[3:37:59] and by
[3:38:01] default it displays county-wide data
[3:38:02] at the
[3:38:04] top and I can select cta from drop
[3:38:06] down. Chair harris, can you do us
[3:38:07] the honor
[3:38:10] of selecting a cta for us.
[3:38:11] >> why
[3:38:13] not try my
[3:38:19] hometown of ta, t takoma park.
[3:38:20] >>
[3:38:21] okay.
[3:38:22] we used the filter at
[3:38:25] the top to select takoma park. It
[3:38:26] is
[3:38:27] highlighted on the map. A summary
[3:38:29] of
[3:38:31] area, population and housing units
[3:38:32] appear on the
[3:38:34] right. There is a view button opening
[3:38:35] the
[3:38:36] full profile from the community trends
[3:38:38] report. I will click
[3:38:41] that really
[3:38:44] quick.
[3:38:47] shoutout
[3:38:50] to our graphic designer megan
[3:38:53] irving who designed these
[3:38:56] amazing documents.
[3:38:57] >> are
[3:38:59] these generated instantly based
[3:39:01] on the criteria or are these general
[3:39:04] overviews?
[3:39:05] >> they are not. They are
[3:39:06] general
[3:39:08] overviews living on
[3:39:11] a server somewhere.
[3:39:17] this
[3:39:18] dashboard follows the natural order
[3:39:23] of the presentation.
[3:39:32] once
[3:39:35] you select your
[3:39:36] cta, it is there for all time until
[3:39:38] you
[3:39:41] change it again.
[3:39:44] it
[3:39:47] focuses on physical
[3:39:49] characteristics, land use and places
[3:39:50] of interest.
[3:39:53] charts summarizing development
[3:39:55] and land use by area. I can click
[3:39:56] the charts
[3:39:59] or use the drop down and toggle
[3:40:01] between ctas and county-wide views.
[3:40:02] I can
[3:40:04] click on the chart. I can multiselect
[3:40:05] within
[3:40:08] a box or I
[3:40:11] can use the fitter here. If I
[3:40:12] want to see montgomery county I can
[3:40:14] see it
[3:40:17] at all times,
[3:40:20] whether depending whether any
[3:40:23] cta I am in.
[3:40:32] up next places of
[3:40:35] interest. That is just the section to the
[3:40:36] right with
[3:40:38] the toggle buttons. So,
[3:40:41] for places of interest, amenities
[3:40:43] like schools, parks, libraries, type
[3:40:47] and selecting a point
[3:40:48] reveals detailsdetails as name and
[3:40:50] address. This can be used
[3:40:52] at the county-wide level as well.
[3:40:53] go ahead and
[3:40:56] click on a place of interest. I have
[3:40:59] selected a church.
[3:41:11] people
[3:41:14] tab summarizes demographic characteristics,
[3:41:17] population, households, age distribution
[3:41:18] and
[3:41:20] household types.
[3:41:22] education, race and ethnicity. Data
[3:41:23] can
[3:41:26] be viewed 2010, 2016,
[3:41:32] 2022.
[3:41:44] housing tab is up next.
[3:41:46] it provides housing conditions, type,
[3:41:47] year built,
[3:41:50] home values, housing costs.
[3:41:53] as with other tabs
[3:41:56] the tab can be viewed at the
[3:41:59] cta
[3:42:02] or county level. Again there is a
[3:42:05] lot in this
[3:42:08] dashboard.
[3:42:11] it is meant for every scale,
[3:42:14] monitor size. Mobile which is 95%
[3:42:16] complete. It took a lot to create
[3:42:17] different charts.
[3:42:20] data was reengineered and
[3:42:23] republished to
[3:42:26] fit schematics for a particular chart.
[3:42:29] we are done with takoma park for now.
[3:42:32] we will see it again right now.
[3:42:35] the comparison
[3:42:38] section it is
[3:42:41] going to be showing all of the ctas
[3:42:42] at the
[3:42:44] same time and it allows users
[3:42:47] to compare
[3:42:50] ctas across different indicators.
[3:42:53] population change, tree canopy and
[3:42:54] montgomery
[3:42:56] county shown as a reference.
[3:42:58] users can switch between different
[3:42:59] views and
[3:43:02] filter to specific
[3:43:05] ctas.
[3:43:11] if anyone sees a topic. I will click
[3:43:13] on that. Very straightforward interaction.
[3:43:14] all I
[3:43:17] am using is the mouse
[3:43:20] here. If I can select a couple of
[3:43:23] ctas, I have a filter in the top left.
[3:43:26] now I can just filter
[3:43:29] a
[3:43:32] couple. I selected five.
[3:43:35] hit apply.
[3:43:50] montgomery county will always be there
[3:43:54] as a reference. There are
[3:43:56] scatter plots down below for three
[3:44:00] particular topics. Age 65 plus
[3:44:03] and people of color.
[3:44:06] education and income.
[3:44:11] clicked on a map. Clicked on the cta
[3:44:14] of the map. See information specific
[3:44:18] to different
[3:44:21] topics.
[3:44:24] average housing value, average housing
[3:44:26] age. I can interact with the housing
[3:44:27] plot to filter out the plot.
[3:44:36] >> complements
[3:44:38] the written report by making something
[3:44:39] more accessible
[3:44:41] and comparable across communities.
[3:44:44] profiles, documentation and methodology
[3:44:45] are
[3:44:48] accessible within the dashboard.
[3:44:51] thank you.
[3:44:53] there is a valid section. We have
[3:44:54] an
[3:44:56] appendix for all of our data sources.
[3:44:59] video sources available on youtube.
[3:45:00] we are here
[3:45:03] to answer any
[3:45:06] questions and the project page
[3:45:07] on montgomery planning.
[3:45:08] >> we have
[3:45:09] a couple
[3:45:12] of slides to
[3:45:15] wrap up.
[3:45:21] >> I have to say good job.
[3:45:33] >> as we wrap up I would like to
[3:45:35] reiterate key points about the point
[3:45:36] and
[3:45:39] our
[3:45:42] analysis. In line
[3:45:44] with the project goals to document
[3:45:47] changing conditions and inform the
[3:45:48] public of trends
[3:45:51] and patterns. We
[3:45:53] published it to provide robust information
[3:45:54] on
[3:45:55] communities across the county and
[3:45:57] looked at 37
[3:45:59] communities covering the entire county
[3:46:02] and analyzed 300 variables and more
[3:46:03] than
[3:46:05] 30,000 data points. The information
[3:46:06] from the
[3:46:08] report helps people understand that
[3:46:09] conditions vary in
[3:46:12] different places and
[3:46:15] over time. It also showcases
[3:46:17] montgomery county's rich diversity
[3:46:18] in the population, housing stock, and
[3:46:21] places.
[3:46:29] finally the third goal is to support
[3:46:30] policy and decision
[3:46:32] making and throughout the presentation
[3:46:33] we made
[3:46:35] statements about policy implications
[3:46:36] for land use planning that
[3:46:39] came out in our analysis. As a
[3:46:42] broader
[3:46:45] er summary here are the crucial
[3:46:48] points. A complete community must
[3:46:49] be
[3:46:51] adjusted based on location and
[3:46:54] development density.
[3:46:57] a community
[3:46:59] in the more rural areas of the county
[3:47:00] will not look
[3:47:03] the same as a
[3:47:05] complete community in more urbanized
[3:47:06] area like silver
[3:47:09] spring. What makes a community more
[3:47:12] complete when it has a range of
[3:47:15] land uses, housing types to
[3:47:18] meet
[3:47:21] a variety of needs for a diverse set
[3:47:24] of people. It must be supported
[3:47:27] in the county with
[3:47:30] the infrastructure.
[3:47:39] we should see other places grow and
[3:47:40] not
[3:47:42] decline if the existing infrastructure
[3:47:45] will support it.
[3:47:48] new land use strategies that facilitate
[3:47:51] redevelopment and advance new development
[3:47:54] opportunities continue to be
[3:47:57] required. So with so much of the
[3:47:59] county's land already developed or
[3:48:00] not available for
[3:48:02] new development, we need to continue
[3:48:03] to come up with
[3:48:06] new methods and ideas to be able
[3:48:09] to accommodate future growth. The
[3:48:10] fourth
[3:48:12] point, housing unit growth is important
[3:48:15] to economic development as the working
[3:48:18] age population has grown more slowly
[3:48:21] than the county's population overall.
[3:48:24] continuing housing growth is critical
[3:48:25] to
[3:48:26] affordability which will help the
[3:48:27] county retain
[3:48:30] and attract people, and especially
[3:48:31] working age people
[3:48:32] who are the backbone of the labor
[3:48:33] force and are needed
[3:48:36] to support the county's long-
[3:48:39] term economic growth. Finally, one
[3:48:40] last
[3:48:42] mention, we might have
[3:48:44] more recommendations for specific
[3:48:46] communities as we discuss the
[3:48:48] data with the planners and with our
[3:48:49] staff members
[3:48:52] in the future.
[3:48:55] overall we have done a
[3:48:58] lot to put
[3:49:01] the report
[3:49:04] together. We are noticing
[3:49:07] things that require
[3:49:10] more explanation.
[3:49:13] and
[3:49:15] this concludes our presentation. Thank
[3:49:19] you.
[3:49:20] >> thank you. This
[3:49:21] is amazing. Absolutely amazing. We
[3:49:24] should disseminate it to, you know,
[3:49:27] all parties that can take advantage
[3:49:28] of
[3:49:31] it and to
[3:49:34] drive data and
[3:49:37] inform decisions.
[3:49:52] I am sure the planners and
[3:49:53] the chambers and land use attorneys
[3:49:55] would need
[3:49:58] to see this. Please get it
[3:50:01] out to them.
[3:50:07] I know I will come back with
[3:50:08] some questions. One question that
[3:50:10] I did have, is
[3:50:12] east silver spring, they lost like
[3:50:16] 2,700 people, families,
[3:50:19] households. These are young
[3:50:22] 18 to 34.
[3:50:28] where do they go?
[3:50:37] takoma park
[3:50:39] lost two, but they grew with the children.
[3:50:40] I was
[3:50:43] trying to figure out how
[3:50:46] that works.
[3:50:55] thank you so much.
[3:50:57] >> just to quickly answer the question,
[3:50:58] that is an
[3:51:00] area where, you know, one of the questions
[3:51:01] that
[3:51:04] we had ourselves.
[3:51:07] we would like to dig more in
[3:51:10] to the question. Yes. We did
[3:51:13] see a loss of young adults. We
[3:51:15] saw a growth in children, the children
[3:51:16] population.
[3:51:18] so, that is a bit of a mystery in
[3:51:19] and
[3:51:21] of itself. Maybe there might be additional
[3:51:22] information that
[3:51:25] we have not looked at. You know, we
[3:51:26] can talk
[3:51:27] to some of the staff members to see
[3:51:28] if they
[3:51:29] know more about the community and
[3:51:31] maybe they might have more
[3:51:33] insight into what is going on demographically.
[3:51:40] >> thank you. >> really.
[3:51:43] that was an amazing job. I don't know
[3:51:45] if that was the first time. I think
[3:51:46] we should continue
[3:51:49] to update this. You have
[3:51:52] the base now.
[3:51:55] every other year when
[3:51:58] the data has more
[3:52:01] change. We compare to see how things
[3:52:04] are going. I have a few
[3:52:07] things that I have
[3:52:10] seen.
[3:52:16] based on the report
[3:52:19] the lower income is not where we are
[3:52:20] having
[3:52:22] the multi
[3:52:25] families, okay.
[3:52:30] the younger people are where we have
[3:52:31] the multi
[3:52:34] families. We want
[3:52:37] to attract younger
[3:52:40] people inin here.
[3:52:46] ownership or rental, but I have
[3:52:49] seen an issue. I have seen
[3:52:52] it without seeing the report.
[3:52:55] it is quite obvious that we are
[3:52:58] building multi family and are
[3:53:01] mostly rental.
[3:53:04] that
[3:53:06] produced the homeownership for younger
[3:53:07] generation.
[3:53:10] older generation is not
[3:53:13] moving.
[3:53:19] so, there
[3:53:22] is no
[3:53:25] sense of doing that.
[3:53:27] even if they want to sell it, the
[3:53:28] prices are
[3:53:31] getting higher
[3:53:34] prices. How can we?
[3:53:37] the real estate is the safest thing
[3:53:40] for younger
[3:53:43] generations.
[3:53:46] how can we give that
[3:53:49] opportunity for younger
[3:53:52] generations to build
[3:53:56] wealth. My children are one
[3:53:58] example that are losing a lot of example
[3:53:59] for
[3:54:02] rental, okay.
[3:54:05] I keep sitting
[3:54:07] there saying just buy something. But
[3:54:08] what they want
[3:54:10] to buy is not where they want to be.
[3:54:11] they
[3:54:14] couldn't afford that.
[3:54:26] they are all going to bebe rent.
[3:54:28] they are not really affordable. They
[3:54:32] don't
[3:54:34] create wealth. Wealth for our younger
[3:54:35] generation
[3:54:37] they want to have that wealth. The
[3:54:38] reason
[3:54:40] that they, I think, I am just thinking
[3:54:41] that a
[3:54:42] lot of the younger generation are
[3:54:44] not going to have more
[3:54:45] children, because they don't want
[3:54:47] to
[3:54:50] raise the
[3:54:53] children in a small area. They
[3:54:55] want to have space with the dogs and
[3:54:56] kids, but they
[3:54:57] can't afford it. They decide, okay,
[3:54:59] we are not
[3:55:00] going to have children. We are just
[3:55:02] going to have one.
[3:55:04] so, how are we going to be, you know, planning for that.
[3:55:05] I don't know.
[3:55:08] not expecting you have the answer.
[3:55:25] >> I am not a young adult anymore, but the
[3:55:26] rest of the other
[3:55:29] three staff
[3:55:32] members are.
[3:55:38] how can we afford to
[3:55:40] live here and buy a home.
[3:55:41] >> I know
[3:55:42] you say
[3:55:44] that, but I am not seeing that. I
[3:55:45] am looking at
[3:55:47] our experts that they do all of
[3:55:50] the plannings. He keeps saying
[3:55:51] production, production, production.
[3:55:53] the thing showed
[3:55:55] that we are done the production.
[3:55:56] >>
[3:55:57] we have not
[3:55:58] done the production.
[3:55:59] >> we have done
[3:56:00] comparing the
[3:56:02] 2010 to 2020 you
[3:56:05] were showing, 2022, there
[3:56:08] is production.
[3:56:13] there has been production, but the
[3:56:14] ownership hasn't increased
[3:56:17] at all. The homeownership is one
[3:56:20] reason people want to
[3:56:23] move.
[3:56:25] they don't want to be a renter all
[3:56:26] of their life.
[3:56:29] if they have a family, they want to
[3:56:30] own
[3:56:32] something. That is what creates
[3:56:34] the wealth for future. That happened
[3:56:35] to me.
[3:56:38] I know a lot of my friends.
[3:56:40] surely if you worked for government,
[3:56:41] that is the
[3:56:43] only thing that can allow you to have
[3:56:44] some wealth.
[3:56:46] how can we provide that opportunity
[3:56:47] for our children?
[3:56:50] >> we are
[3:56:53] trying.
[3:56:56] >> just to respond, sorry you are
[3:56:58] in a conversation. Thanks for sticking
[3:56:59] around. I
[3:57:02] think that was the experience of an
[3:57:04] older generation. I don't think it
[3:57:05] is an
[3:57:06] experience of a generation younger
[3:57:08] than me. It takes so
[3:57:10] much longer to get together the wealth
[3:57:11] necessary to put
[3:57:13] a down payment and purchase a house
[3:57:14] than it did even
[3:57:17] a decade ago. Value
[3:57:20] in my neighborhood have gone up 45%
[3:57:21] depending
[3:57:23] how you look at it. If I was forced
[3:57:24] to
[3:57:26] give a 20%
[3:57:29] or 5% down payment on what I
[3:57:32] paid, that is a scale difference.
[3:57:35] that requires a much higher base to
[3:57:36] purchase from.
[3:57:38] when you are talking about a post
[3:57:39] baby
[3:57:41] boom generation or
[3:57:44] older gen x generation, the
[3:57:46] inflation adjusted cost of the home
[3:57:47] was considerably lower
[3:57:50] and you had much more investment in
[3:57:53] loans and things like that
[3:57:55] lowering the overall entry point that
[3:57:56] you do not
[3:57:59] have now. We have taken 91%
[3:58:01] of the residential space, sectioned
[3:58:02] it off for single
[3:58:04] family homes. We cannot build that
[3:58:05] because we are
[3:58:08] not build out.
[3:58:11] we can only
[3:58:14] build multi family in 9% of the county.
[3:58:17] there are hardly any spaces
[3:58:19] left. You run the numbers and what
[3:58:20] you see is
[3:58:23] what we get. Creep, creep, creep,
[3:58:24] steep. That
[3:58:25] is where we have come to this point.
[3:58:26] people do
[3:58:29] want to buy. People want homeownership.
[3:58:32] is it a different market for
[3:58:35] multi family and a market for single
[3:58:38] family detached homeownership which
[3:58:39] we can't
[3:58:41] build anymore.
[3:58:42] >> I am not talking
[3:58:43] about just
[3:58:45] single family, okay. You have
[3:58:48] townhomes, two by twos. I
[3:58:50] see the architect come with a really
[3:58:51] innovative
[3:58:54] ideas that allow --
[3:58:57] I am not
[3:58:58] talking single family or anything.
[3:59:00] you said the
[3:59:03] rent increased by 40% while
[3:59:06] the mortgage has gone
[3:59:09] up 14%.
[3:59:12] it allows people to have a
[3:59:15] better quality of
[3:59:18] life.
[3:59:33] what I am
[3:59:36] challenging us to think about
[3:59:37] all other different types of housing
[3:59:39] types that allows
[3:59:42] ownership. That is what I
[3:59:45] am talking about.
[3:59:51] we just started to
[3:59:54] approve those in the past
[3:59:55] years. Hopefully we will see them
[3:59:57] in the market in the
[4:00:00] next couple of
[4:00:03] years.
[4:00:06] we
[4:00:09] are going to wrap this up.
[4:00:10] >> I
[4:00:12] like your presentation.
[4:00:24] >> I
[4:00:27] was wondering if
[4:00:29] there is a cost of analysis versus
[4:00:30] the
[4:00:32] selling price of the unit or the house
[4:00:33] based on
[4:00:36] the county.
[4:00:39] one of those is the
[4:00:40] cost of construction and the cost
[4:00:42] of housing. I
[4:00:45] was wondering if it is
[4:00:47] different, the cost in east county
[4:00:48] is different than
[4:00:51] the cost in west county. If they
[4:00:54] are the same, you know, what is
[4:00:57] the obstacle of building, you
[4:00:59] know, multi family dwelling units
[4:01:00] in west
[4:01:02] county opposed to east county if the
[4:01:03] cost
[4:01:05] will be the same, and you can sell
[4:01:06] it for
[4:01:08] more moneymoney west county than you
[4:01:09] could in
[4:01:12] east county.
[4:01:13] >> for the record,
[4:01:14] kerry mccarthy, division chief of
[4:01:15] research in
[4:01:17] strategic projects. The general answer
[4:01:18] to that is
[4:01:21] land costs, land values are a lot
[4:01:23] higher in west county than east county.
[4:01:24] construction
[4:01:26] costs, you are drawing materials,
[4:01:27] out of county,
[4:01:30] out of state, regional. It really
[4:01:33] s down to the land value.
[4:01:34] >> is
[4:01:35] it based on location, demographics
[4:01:36] or is
[4:01:39] it based upon scarcity?
[4:01:42] >> kind of all of the above.
[4:01:44] school districts. Perceived quality
[4:01:45] of
[4:01:48] school districts is a big driver
[4:01:51] and location.
[4:01:54] >> so,
[4:01:57] in west county there
[4:01:59] are less public transportation opportunities,
[4:02:00] correct.
[4:02:03] right. However, how does that compute
[4:02:04] with
[4:02:06] what you just said because there are
[4:02:07] less
[4:02:08] public transportation opportunities.
[4:02:09] so, the
[4:02:12] land value is higher because there
[4:02:13] is less transportation options.
[4:02:14] >>
[4:02:15] there are
[4:02:18] schools, access to parks,
[4:02:24] amenities, commuting.
[4:02:25] >> you
[4:02:27] are talking about a place r-200 or
[4:02:30] r-1. Your house may cost 3. 5
[4:02:32] but it is sitting on an acre and a
[4:02:33] half of
[4:02:35] land, and you can't build anything
[4:02:36] but a single
[4:02:39] family home on it anyway.
[4:02:40] >> if it
[4:02:42] were zoned differently --if we
[4:02:45] had comparable zones in west and east
[4:02:46] county
[4:02:47] and they were zoned the same, right.
[4:02:48] would the
[4:02:50] value of the land be different in
[4:02:51] west county than the value
[4:02:54] of the land in east
[4:02:57] county?
[4:02:58] >> kind of
[4:03:00] depends.
[4:03:01] >> why. >>
[4:03:02] why?
[4:03:03] >> some of it is commute from
[4:03:04] dc,
[4:03:05] transit is a benefit and driving on
[4:03:06] the westside of
[4:03:09] the county it is
[4:03:13] >> I think
[4:03:16] when we would look
[4:03:18] at availability of space, the more space
[4:03:19] available in west county than
[4:03:22] there is in east county. And
[4:03:25] the cost of construction
[4:03:28] is the same, but land value is not based
[4:03:31] upon scarcity,
[4:03:32] but some other intangibles. We can
[4:03:34] look
[4:03:36] at opportunities for expanding construction and building
[4:03:40] in west county as opposed to
[4:03:43] east county. The variables you mentioned,
[4:03:45] you know, school performance, whatnot,
[4:03:46] we also
[4:03:50] have to examine how we
[4:03:53] can improve
[4:03:56] our school's performances and
[4:03:57] demographics, I guess, in east county,
[4:03:59] or find some
[4:04:02] kind of way to limit
[4:04:05] the estimation of value based upon schools
[4:04:06] only and demographics. Because the
[4:04:08] proximity to
[4:04:10] metro station that you brought up doesn't
[4:04:12] really particularly fit for west county,
[4:04:14] as it does in the central
[4:04:17] part of the
[4:04:18] county and east county. So I just
[4:04:20] find it
[4:04:22] curious on how homes are valued in
[4:04:23] our
[4:04:26] county that limit
[4:04:28] the opportunity for homeownership.
[4:04:29] >>
[4:04:30] yep.
[4:04:31] >> and then
[4:04:32] I've really liked this information. Final
[4:04:33] question is how
[4:04:35] will the local citizen, who is
[4:04:38] not a developer and is just a
[4:04:41] consumer use
[4:04:43] this information to their benefit?
[4:04:44] >>
[4:04:45] so
[4:04:46] first of all, we pick key demographic
[4:04:47] and
[4:04:49] land use in housing characteristics,
[4:04:50] that give up an overarching
[4:04:52] picture of what the community had
[4:04:53] looks like. So
[4:04:55] probably for the average citizen,
[4:04:58] you know, most people may not know
[4:04:59] exactly
[4:05:01] what the data points are. What does
[4:05:02] our
[4:05:03] community look like? You know, they
[4:05:05] may
[4:05:08] have some perception
[4:05:11] of well, this community is
[4:05:14] wealthier. Demographics may
[4:05:16] be this. You know, percentage of people. But,
[4:05:17] you know,
[4:05:19] we want them to have the correct information. So
[4:05:20] this
[4:05:23] is suppose
[4:05:26] to be an authoritative source we're providing
[4:05:27] to
[4:05:28] the community. And this is suppose
[4:05:29] to be,
[4:05:32] you know, a first place for them
[4:05:35] to stop at, to
[4:05:36] look at the information, learn about,
[4:05:38] you know,
[4:05:41] what their community looks like. And
[4:05:44] have the kinds of conversations that
[4:05:47] we are having right now. Ask questions
[4:05:48] and think
[4:05:49] about, well, what about these other things
[4:05:52] that may not be published? You know,
[4:05:53] in the
[4:05:56] report. You know, why is this
[4:05:59] going on? And then, you know, perhaps maybe
[4:06:02] start engaging with
[4:06:03] our community leaders to, you know, answer
[4:06:05] some of these questions and
[4:06:06] maybe drive policy change as well.
[4:06:11] >> okay, linden,
[4:06:17] do you have
[4:06:18] any questions, comments?
[4:06:19] >> no questions. Just somewhat,
[4:06:20] a lot of thanks to
[4:06:23] the team. This was
[4:06:24] really incredible stuff. I really
[4:06:25] enjoyed reading through the report. I didn't
[4:06:26] quite
[4:06:27] make it through the whole thing yet. But
[4:06:29] I enjoy the parts I got through,
[4:06:34] and I appreciate this presentation.
[4:06:38] it will be
[4:06:41] a valuable resource to plug in
[4:06:44] and support so
[4:06:46] many policy plans and conversations. Yeah,
[4:06:47] I really look forward to kind of continuing
[4:06:50] to chew on a lot of
[4:06:52] this and have conversations around
[4:06:53] it. So yeah, just thanks so
[4:06:56] much for your work on it.
[4:07:02] >> we appreciate it. We're going to
[4:07:03] take
[4:07:05] a 30-minute break and come
[4:07:08] back, so 30 minutes from
[4:07:11] now is like 1:30. Thank you so much. We
[4:07:12] look
[4:07:14] --great, great work. Thank you.
[4:07:47] after a 30-minute break ]
[4:40:52] z
[4:40:53] >>>
[4:40:55] item seven and eight, item seven is
[4:40:57] dps zoning and site plan enforcement. And
[4:40:58] they will cover
[4:41:01] the site plan mou and
[4:41:03] enforcement coordination. And the
[4:41:04] second item, number eight, land development
[4:41:07] will present the right of way stormwater
[4:41:08] and
[4:41:09] wells and septic. You have to admit,
[4:41:10] I haven't seen it so lively here in a while,
[4:41:11] so
[4:41:13] thank you
[4:41:16] for the dps and the dot team for coming today. So
[4:41:19] we'll
[4:41:21] start off with robin kronenberg, deputy
[4:41:22] director, telling us what we're going
[4:41:24] to be hearing today.
[4:41:25] >> thank you,
[4:41:26] mr. Chair. Thank you
[4:41:28] to our partners
[4:41:31] with dot and with dps. Definitely
[4:41:32] have
[4:41:33] a good turnout here. The board did
[4:41:34] ask for a briefing back in the fall. It's
[4:41:35] taken a
[4:41:36] little while to get this together,
[4:41:38] but
[4:41:41] we really appreciate your
[4:41:42] partnership here. And, you know, we
[4:41:44] work with everyone
[4:41:47] here on a daily
[4:41:49] basis. Our coordination efforts, in many
[4:41:50] respects, behind the scenes. So what
[4:41:51] you
[4:41:52] see is kind of a final report that
[4:41:53] comes to
[4:41:55] you. A lot of times, it is what all these
[4:41:58] people collectively have worked together
[4:42:01] with our staff to bring to you. I
[4:42:02] also wanted
[4:42:04] to say we really appreciate their
[4:42:08] feedback and their participation in
[4:42:09] the community planning academy. I
[4:42:11] know you were, you
[4:42:14] helped represent one of
[4:42:17] the activities we had. But
[4:42:18] both agencies provided input in the
[4:42:21] participation and in the modules. So
[4:42:23] the presentations
[4:42:25] today are intended to be informational
[4:42:26] and provide the
[4:42:27] board an overview of a variety of
[4:42:29] elements that are
[4:42:32] a part of our regulatory
[4:42:33] reviews and post approvals. Again,
[4:42:35] our regulatory reviews include,
[4:42:38] but aren't limited to stormwater management,
[4:42:39] storm drains, zoning, well, septic, right
[4:42:41] of way, and then
[4:42:44] the post approvals are
[4:42:45] record plats and site plan enforcement,
[4:42:47] and I know
[4:42:48] from the dps and dot standpoint, a
[4:42:50] lot of the right of ways
[4:42:52] and the control work that's done. So
[4:42:53] these
[4:42:55] two items will run continuously together. So
[4:42:56] feel
[4:42:58] free to ask them questions. I think
[4:42:59] they
[4:43:00] will have breaks at certain points,
[4:43:02] if you want to hold
[4:43:05] your questions until those points. But
[4:43:07] I'm sure the team will be able to
[4:43:08] navigate
[4:43:09] the questions and the answers. I'd
[4:43:11] like to turn it over. I think
[4:43:14] it's to greg and victor. Is that correct? And
[4:43:16] then I'll let the respective people
[4:43:17] that
[4:43:18] are up here introduce their teams
[4:43:20] if that
[4:43:23] is okay.
[4:43:24] >> can I just
[4:43:25] say, I just want to to really thank
[4:43:26] you
[4:43:29] for all of
[4:43:32] you
[4:43:34] guys being here. Being the director of funding services.
[4:43:38] and
[4:43:41] I
[4:43:44] can attest to the dedication. How
[4:43:47] passionate they
[4:43:50] are for
[4:43:53] the work
[4:43:56] we do. The good relationship
[4:43:59] and coordination with us right
[4:44:02] now. I personally am
[4:44:05] privileged
[4:44:07] to know them, to work with them, thanks
[4:44:11] them for everything they did together
[4:44:14] and for everything that
[4:44:16] they are doing right now. Thank you for being here.
[4:44:20] >> for those
[4:44:23] that were not a part of
[4:44:25] our morning session, commissioner,
[4:44:26] vice chair linden is
[4:44:27] participating virtually today, so
[4:44:29] he is here. Thank you.
[4:44:41] >> chair and members
[4:44:43] of the planning board. I'm victor salazar,
[4:44:44] division chief for
[4:44:47] zoning and code compliance at
[4:44:50] dps. I'm joined by greg
[4:44:52] nichols, section manager per code compliance
[4:44:53] and brian, who
[4:44:56] is our program managerrer and
[4:44:59] manages our field inspection teams. With
[4:45:00] us
[4:45:02] today, our inspectors who
[4:45:08] were seated behind us. Just to
[4:45:11] give you an idea. Guys, keep standing
[4:45:13] for a section. We are only missing
[4:45:14] two on the team, but raise
[4:45:16] your hand. Patrick, he's inside the beltway,
[4:45:17] okay. And then just going
[4:45:20] north of that, we
[4:45:22] are missing amir aberdeen, but we've
[4:45:23] got alvin clarkson, basically
[4:45:26] your guy in the east. Just above him
[4:45:28] in montgomery village area, going
[4:45:29] up
[4:45:31] towards gaithersburg, you have neman. And
[4:45:36] then you've got oscar hildalgo, mostly
[4:45:38] in the clarkburg area. But he's
[4:45:39] in training still. Really great. We've got
[4:45:41] him all over the place. We
[4:45:44] are also missing andre
[4:45:47] peters who is gaitherstown, germantown west.
[4:45:48] >>
[4:45:49] I've been working with alvin since
[4:45:50] he was assigned to silver springs,
[4:45:52] so I appreciate the work he's been
[4:45:53] doing. Probably been at least 15
[4:45:55] years that we've been working together,
[4:45:59] so I appreciate their work.
[4:46:02] >> today, our portion of the briefing
[4:46:05] focuses on how planning board decisions
[4:46:06] translate
[4:46:08] into what actually gets built
[4:46:14] on the ground. Specifically through
[4:46:15] our certified
[4:46:16] site plan compliance program. This
[4:46:17] is not a policy pitch. It's
[4:46:20] an operational walk through, how the
[4:46:23] system works, how we coordinate
[4:46:26] where accountability lives, and what we've
[4:46:27] learned. After
[4:46:28] this section, linda and her team will
[4:46:29] walk you through the land development
[4:46:30] side
[4:46:32] of the house, which picks up where
[4:46:33] our compliance role intersects with infrastructure delivery.
[4:46:41] this agenda follows the life cycle
[4:46:45] of a project, from planning
[4:46:48] board approval to inspection
[4:46:54] to enforcement to lessons
[4:46:57] learned. This mou exists
[4:46:58] because approvals don't enforce themselves. The
[4:47:00] mou was
[4:47:03] created
[4:47:04] to remove ambiguity, who expects what, when planning
[4:47:06] is looped in,
[4:47:08] and who is accountable when conditions
[4:47:09] aren't
[4:47:11] met. Before the mou responsibilities were
[4:47:12] implied,
[4:47:15] after
[4:47:17] the mou, they are explicit. Integrity
[4:47:19] of the planning board conditions and
[4:47:21] the language that you put
[4:47:23] in the resolutions in the program
[4:47:25] tables that we follow. And so if you
[4:47:27] don't --if you don't
[4:47:30] get an opportunity to see those
[4:47:31] plans after staff reports have submitted
[4:47:33] them
[4:47:34] to you, and they've been certified,
[4:47:36] we brought an
[4:47:38] example of some of the plans that
[4:47:39] we
[4:47:41] often refer to when our inspectors
[4:47:42] were out in the
[4:47:43] field, and those are sitting in front
[4:47:45] of us right now. Go ahead.
[4:47:54] what we want to emphasize
[4:47:57] with regards
[4:48:00] to framework and
[4:48:01] objectives. The mou gives us predictability. It
[4:48:03] provides us clear
[4:48:06] handoffs, and there is
[4:48:07] no duplication. This framework is
[4:48:09] less about bureaucracy
[4:48:10] and more about preventing gaps. Gaps
[4:48:12] that
[4:48:15] show up later
[4:48:18] as complaints, delays, or displacement
[4:48:21] disputes. Talks about collaboration between
[4:48:24] our agencies,
[4:48:27] and it dictates to us how
[4:48:30] we
[4:48:32] enforce conditions, when our inspectors
[4:48:33] discovered what you put
[4:48:34] in the resolution, and the program
[4:48:36] table differ than what is
[4:48:39] being constructed in the field and
[4:48:42] how we correct those, how we
[4:48:45] make corrections to those mistakes. You
[4:48:48] can go to the
[4:48:51] next one. The objectives, we
[4:48:53] want to clarify agency roles. Ensure
[4:48:57] consistency in compliance of planning
[4:48:59] board conditions. Provide a structured
[4:49:00] response
[4:49:01] to community complaints, and promote inner agency efficiencies.
[4:49:06] okay. You can go.
[4:49:14] about responsibilities under the mou.
[4:49:18] planning
[4:49:21] sets
[4:49:24] the conditions. You guys
[4:49:25] receive suggested, suggestions from
[4:49:26] planning staff. You deliberate and
[4:49:27] you decide what you
[4:49:30] will amend and what
[4:49:33] you will keep. And what happens is
[4:49:36] in those certified
[4:49:39] plans, transmitted to us
[4:49:40] electronically. You review permits
[4:49:42] for conformity, provide
[4:49:43] electronic access, and participate
[4:49:44] in scheduled coordination. So if it
[4:49:45] is
[4:49:47] not with you, that stuff, we are definitely
[4:49:48] meeting with
[4:49:51] jason
[4:49:54] and robert and their staff. Yep. So
[4:49:56] dps ensures those conditions were
[4:49:57] met in the
[4:50:00] field, and we
[4:50:03] do this through
[4:50:04] inspections, regularly coordinated
[4:50:06] meetings within
[4:50:09] our department and
[4:50:11] with planning. And we perform investigations with
[4:50:12] regards to
[4:50:14] deviations from what is being constructed
[4:50:15] in the field,
[4:50:18] and then we coordinate with
[4:50:20] planning staff for bond releases and reviews.
[4:50:30] it
[4:50:33] is not, it is routine and not reactive. We
[4:50:35] have weekly, monthly, and quarterly
[4:50:36] touch points,
[4:50:39] which means
[4:50:40] issues are addressed early. Before
[4:50:42] they escalate. You don't hear about
[4:50:43] most
[4:50:44] of these because they were resolved before
[4:50:45] they become problems. So
[4:50:48] right here is where
[4:50:50] we talk about this slide, highlights those key coordination channels.
[4:51:00] before the projects reach the
[4:51:02] planning board, drc will meet with
[4:51:03] all
[4:51:04] of the relevant agencies and utilities
[4:51:06] and anyone involved in the regulatory
[4:51:09] process to
[4:51:12] meet with the applicants
[4:51:15] and discuss the over--the overlapping regulatory
[4:51:18] issues that
[4:51:21] may impact their project. Then we
[4:51:22] have inner
[4:51:23] agency inspection leadership. This
[4:51:24] is josh k.,
[4:51:27] this is greg and brian. And they
[4:51:30] meet regularly to talk about emerging
[4:51:31] issues
[4:51:32] that are happening on the ground. On
[4:51:33] thursday
[4:51:36] morning, we have
[4:51:39] a senior management meeting internally
[4:51:40] with dps, with josh, and that is where
[4:51:42] we take one of these projects
[4:51:44] and one of these plans, and we peel
[4:51:45] back the onion and go in depth,
[4:51:48] and we talk about what is
[4:51:50] happening today, what are the emerging issues
[4:51:54] that we need to address, and
[4:52:00] how was the project progressing?
[4:52:03] beyond the
[4:52:06] mou, and we're talk to talk
[4:52:09] about how the mou between
[4:52:12] the ways will become operationallized. Coordination
[4:52:13] here is routine and not reactive.
[4:52:21] excuse me, I just said
[4:52:24] that. This is where policy becomes inspection. Multiple
[4:52:26] touch points per month means we're
[4:52:27] not waiting for complaints
[4:52:30] to tell us something is wrong. We
[4:52:33] found out about them early, and
[4:52:34] then we communicate across agencies
[4:52:36] to determine
[4:52:39] what the best action is
[4:52:42] to bring the developer into
[4:52:45] compliance. Okay, you
[4:52:48] can go to the next one. It
[4:52:51] shows what compliance
[4:52:54] looks like on the ground. It's
[4:52:57] about adherence
[4:53:00] to the resolution program table. Construction
[4:53:01] compliance
[4:53:02] is about sequencing. Doing the right
[4:53:04] things in the right order.
[4:53:07] team coordination is what
[4:53:10] keeps this from becoming siloed,
[4:53:12] so we partner with dot, planning,
[4:53:15] right of way, our developers, our
[4:53:19] engineers, and our utility
[4:53:22] companies to make sure
[4:53:24] these projects are being constructed
[4:53:25] in a
[4:53:28] manner that you have outlined in
[4:53:31] your
[4:53:33] resolution and your program tables.
[4:53:37] weekly briefing, this
[4:53:40] is not a check box
[4:53:41] meeting. It's where emerging risks surface
[4:53:43] early. And
[4:53:45] this is where we deeply and in depth
[4:53:46] discuss what
[4:53:49] is going on, on
[4:53:51] the ground, and determining what we
[4:53:52] need
[4:53:54] to do to correct those violations
[4:53:55] that we
[4:53:56] find or those failed inspections that
[4:53:58] we find
[4:54:01] out in the field. What this
[4:54:02] is, senior management visibility. It
[4:54:05] is intentional, and it reinforces
[4:54:07] accountability. So not
[4:54:08] only are inspectors and the frontline
[4:54:10] managers involved in
[4:54:12] making sure these certified site plans
[4:54:13] are
[4:54:15] complied with, but I, as a division
[4:54:16] chief,
[4:54:19] are actively involved
[4:54:25] in ensuring that
[4:54:28] happens also. Most problems
[4:54:31] are preventable with
[4:54:32] early clarity. Early meetings, clear
[4:54:34] language, and dashboards
[4:54:37] have reduced friction out in the
[4:54:40] field. Clear site plan language
[4:54:41] saves everyone time. That includes
[4:54:43] the inspectors in the
[4:54:44] applicants in planning, so thank you
[4:54:46] very much
[4:54:47] to planning staff for making sure
[4:54:49] that
[4:54:52] we have clear and
[4:54:55] defensible language, when we
[4:54:57] are holding our developers, people
[4:54:58] out in the field,
[4:54:59] holding them accountable for what
[4:55:01] you
[4:55:04] have put down on these plans. I'm
[4:55:07] just going to go through three
[4:55:08] projects that show how these projects
[4:55:10] show
[4:55:13] the program and
[4:55:15] how it works at scale. One of them
[4:55:16] is
[4:55:19] a project that came
[4:55:22] online about ten
[4:55:25] years ago, which is the
[4:55:28] premium outfits. And this is without
[4:55:31] reading everything
[4:55:33] on the slide, what they brought into
[4:55:36] the northern part of the county is
[4:55:40] an economic hub that brought jobs
[4:55:41] and provides
[4:55:43] positive economic output
[4:55:49] for the county today.
[4:55:52] it is
[4:55:55] much more closer to this board's
[4:55:57] membership. It's the marriott headquarters. You
[4:55:58] can go
[4:56:01] to the next one. What marriott headquarters brings,
[4:56:02] if
[4:56:04] you think about the brand
[4:56:07] of marriott, we are talking about
[4:56:10] people associate marriott with
[4:56:13] success. People associate marriott
[4:56:14] with successful
[4:56:15] people, bringing in money, people
[4:56:18] who are going on vacation, people
[4:56:19] who are having corporate
[4:56:22] meetings, and
[4:56:25] to have marriott headquarters
[4:56:28] in bethesda, showcases how
[4:56:31] planning has successfully brought
[4:56:32] a marquee
[4:56:33] organization into bethesda. What bethesda
[4:56:34] and the location of
[4:56:37] the marriott headquarters also brings
[4:56:38] is an
[4:56:39] international organization, and we're
[4:56:40] talking about
[4:56:42] the climate action plan, trying to
[4:56:46] reduce vehicle miles traveled
[4:56:48] and providing a workplace that would
[4:56:49] then a
[4:56:51] mile radius that people have access to
[4:56:55] restaurants, have access
[4:56:57] to shopping, have access to schools. All
[4:56:58] the things
[4:57:01] that are necessary to have
[4:57:04] a community. They are also
[4:57:07] located near a
[4:57:08] hub of transportation with the bethesda
[4:57:10] metro center and seeing the
[4:57:13] purple line. So what we have brought
[4:57:15] here is an employer, an international employer,
[4:57:16] and
[4:57:19] they have set
[4:57:22] up shop here
[4:57:25] in montgomery county. Then
[4:57:28] the next one, bethesda. So for
[4:57:30] us here, this is a pretty complex
[4:57:31] project that
[4:57:33] goes to the next page. This is the
[4:57:34] scope of the project here.
[4:57:37] it's
[4:57:39] one thing that we notice, we have
[4:57:40] two developers we
[4:57:43] are working with. So the project is pretty close to finish.
[4:57:49] what has happened is we
[4:57:52] have had to
[4:57:55] tag team and make sure our staff ensuring that
[4:57:58] two developers are meeting their
[4:58:01] triggers, that they are adhering to
[4:58:02] the resolution
[4:58:04] in the program
[4:58:07] tables that
[4:58:09] you guys have for us. By the numbers.
[4:58:13] so
[4:58:16] this slide gives you a sense of scale and rhythm,
[4:58:19] how this is being exercised,
[4:58:22] not that
[4:58:25] it just exists. So these numbers
[4:58:28] reflect routine activity and
[4:58:31] not exceptions. They
[4:58:33] show ongoing oversight, not enforcement. And
[4:58:34] the
[4:58:36] program is active across multiple
[4:58:37] projects
[4:58:39] at the same time. So the takeaway
[4:58:43] here isn't the individual
[4:58:46] figures. It's that this
[4:58:51] program operates throughout the year. Each
[4:58:52] of the question,
[4:58:55] why
[4:58:57] this matters beyond our two agencies.
[4:59:04] fewer downstream
[4:59:06] interpretation issues. More predictability
[4:59:07] and
[4:59:10] fewer surprises late in
[4:59:13] construction. And earlier issue identification reduced
[4:59:14] the work more efficient resolution.
[4:59:19] because coordination
[4:59:22] happens early, issues surface sooner. And
[4:59:23] the
[4:59:25] public benefit here is confidence. That
[4:59:26] what
[4:59:28] is approved
[4:59:31] is actually what gets built.
[4:59:34] if
[4:59:36] there is one takeaway today that after
[4:59:37] going through the previous
[4:59:40] 22 slides, if you can take away
[4:59:42] anything today from what I've delivered here
[4:59:44] is
[4:59:46] that the importance of collaboration
[4:59:48] between our two agencies is what has
[4:59:50] made
[4:59:53] this program a success. The mou
[4:59:55] was entered into 2006. The iteration
[4:59:59] of the mou
[5:00:00] was signed in 2018. We are currently
[5:00:02] in
[5:00:05] the process of revising
[5:00:08] the mou for the front
[5:00:11] planning board
[5:00:14] chair and the two directors to
[5:00:16] sign in the coming months. But the
[5:00:19] slide may read as self-evident, but
[5:00:20] in practice, it's
[5:00:23] the hardest thing to sustain.
[5:00:26] so now
[5:00:29] I am going
[5:00:32] to end
[5:00:34] the slide show here. Dps appreciates
[5:00:35] the
[5:00:37] division of zoning, appreciates the opportunity
[5:00:41] to present the mou and our
[5:00:43] code compliance inspection program. After
[5:00:44] all, dps is your project partner.
[5:00:53] >> I like that,
[5:00:55] thank you. I needed that.
[5:00:56] >> yeah,
[5:00:57] thank
[5:00:59] you
[5:01:02] so much in explaining the
[5:01:05] process, letting us know that
[5:01:08] it is not just periodic points
[5:01:10] that you go out and check the continuous checking,
[5:01:14] and that
[5:01:15] our teams are working together. And
[5:01:17] so what
[5:01:23] I heard you
[5:01:26] say is the planning
[5:01:28] and the dps people are interacting
[5:01:31] --you said every ten days? Is that
[5:01:32] what it is? Did
[5:01:35] I get that right?
[5:01:36] >> no,
[5:01:38] what he was referring to is we
[5:01:40] have a program now. Mou stipulates
[5:01:43] that we inspect all active certified
[5:01:44] site plan projects
[5:01:47] within once every ten days.
[5:01:48] >> okay. >>
[5:01:49] now,
[5:01:50] when projects are closing in on triggers
[5:01:51] like they're trying to get
[5:01:52] all their landscaping in, they're
[5:01:53] trying to get all their amenities
[5:01:56] in, or they're trying to
[5:01:57] reach a certain milestone. Our guys
[5:01:59] might have to go out there
[5:02:01] every day, right?
[5:02:02] >> right. >> but
[5:02:03] by the
[5:02:05] mou, we have to
[5:02:08] go out on all
[5:02:11] active projects once every
[5:02:12] ten days. And even with guys that
[5:02:14] are having to fill in
[5:02:16] for one another. Somebody goes on
[5:02:17] extended leave. They
[5:02:18] can all see that dashboard, and that's
[5:02:20] the dashboard kind
[5:02:22] of thing they're talking about. That
[5:02:23] way we
[5:02:26] never get behind
[5:02:29] on that.
[5:02:30] >> okay,
[5:02:31] great. Great. That's great to know. It
[5:02:32] was the developer
[5:02:35] side and not
[5:02:38] on
[5:02:39] the construction side. Where would
[5:02:41] josh plug
[5:02:44] in to this project?
[5:02:45] >> so
[5:02:47] josh works, obviously
[5:02:48] with robert. He works with christine,
[5:02:50] right? And what's
[5:02:52] that division called? She's intake? I
[5:02:53] call it
[5:02:55] intake.
[5:02:56] >> it's environmental climate now. >>
[5:02:58] okay, it's environmental climate now. So
[5:02:59] josh and
[5:03:02] his staff do the forest
[5:03:05] conservation, okay? And they do all
[5:03:06] preliminary, preliminary plan compliance.
[5:03:07] >>
[5:03:08] okay.
[5:03:09] >> we insist in
[5:03:10] that. They help us sometimes. We assist
[5:03:11] them sometimes. But he is sort
[5:03:14] of a go
[5:03:17] between. He's your liaison when it
[5:03:19] comes to between staff and our concerns.
[5:03:20] >>
[5:03:21] right.
[5:03:22] >>
[5:03:23] the forest conservation.
[5:03:24] >> I have
[5:03:25] worked with
[5:03:26] josh. We've known each other for well over
[5:03:28] 20 years. So yeah, we collaborate
[5:03:29] in that respect. If we see
[5:03:30] a problem, you know, we want to bounce
[5:03:32] it off of josh and he
[5:03:33] bounces off of staff. We want to stay
[5:03:35] on the
[5:03:37] same page.
[5:03:38] >> right. >> the mou allows
[5:03:39] anyone at
[5:03:40] any time to escalate something, if they don't
[5:03:41] agree with
[5:03:42] one of our decisions. They could come
[5:03:43] to staff and they can escalate it. But
[5:03:44] what
[5:03:46] we try to do, we make sure we're on
[5:03:47] the same page
[5:03:49] so that that rarely happens.
[5:03:50] >> okay,
[5:03:51] great. And
[5:03:52] I know those mous are always hard
[5:03:53] to, you know,
[5:03:55] put together an update, but they are so important
[5:03:56] at the end
[5:03:58] of the day, so thank you that you
[5:03:59] guys work so hard
[5:04:02] together to keep it, you
[5:04:03] know, up to date periodically. Thank
[5:04:05] you
[5:04:08] so much.
[5:04:09] >> mr. Chair, I would add
[5:04:11] that we think the initiators of
[5:04:13] the mou back in 2006. So the continuity
[5:04:14] has been there. We do
[5:04:17] bring it and update it
[5:04:18] as much as possible. Usually it's
[5:04:20] every two to three years that we're
[5:04:23] updating it. I think the most recent
[5:04:26] one, and I would say they are
[5:04:28] graciously agreed to interpret our expedited
[5:04:29] plan approvals as a site plan, so
[5:04:31] this is something that we have added
[5:04:32] to the mou because
[5:04:34] it is not technically a site plan,
[5:04:35] but
[5:04:38] it will have the same context and
[5:04:39] the
[5:04:40] same formality that they do. So things
[5:04:41] like that,
[5:04:44] we would add to
[5:04:47] the m, ozarks in
[5:04:50] terms of clarity and what.
[5:04:51] >> anything
[5:04:52] else?
[5:04:53] >> I
[5:04:54] just wanted to add something.
[5:04:56] what dps does
[5:04:59] at the zoning
[5:05:02] that victor just explained. Only the
[5:05:05] conditions that we received that
[5:05:08] they review, and then those conditions are approved,
[5:05:09] and
[5:05:11] it goes
[5:05:14] to the resolution. It is like given
[5:05:15] to them religiously. I know that at
[5:05:17] one time, we were trying
[5:05:20] to have it in a way
[5:05:22] that all of those conditions be readily
[5:05:23] available for the inspector that
[5:05:26] will go to the field to see
[5:05:29] that if they are in compliance. So
[5:05:31] the enforcement is on them. We just
[5:05:32] sign it
[5:05:35] on the paper and it goes. They
[5:05:38] make sure it happens. This
[5:05:41] group of
[5:05:44] inspector for zoning, they are basically
[5:05:47] for these requirements because dps on
[5:05:48] top
[5:05:50] of that
[5:05:53] has lots of other inspectors
[5:05:56] that they do the commercials
[5:05:59] and presentations, and
[5:06:01] electrical and mechanical. So these
[5:06:02] group of inspectors are on top
[5:06:05] of the other inspectors that
[5:06:08] dps has to
[5:06:11] make sure that everything is being
[5:06:14] put it in place and is built to the regulations. It
[5:06:17] is built according to the approved plan. Not
[5:06:20] just the site plan to the approved
[5:06:21] plan. And
[5:06:23] the other thing that dps does that
[5:06:27] is very
[5:06:30] important, all the impact
[5:06:33] taxes. Everything else
[5:06:36] that we, you know, our planning department have
[5:06:37] on the policies that they collect.
[5:06:43] and the difficult part is they don't all
[5:06:45] collect it right
[5:06:46] when the application goes in. There
[5:06:48] are a
[5:06:50] lot of different stages that I don't
[5:06:51] even know, that I
[5:06:53] know that because they discuss it
[5:06:54] when
[5:06:56] it's going to be, when those fees
[5:06:59] are going to be collected. It is all
[5:07:02] being collected by dps at the certain
[5:07:03] time. A lot of
[5:07:06] times, we
[5:07:08] say they could not allow certain --
[5:07:09] if you say the
[5:07:12] park should be
[5:07:14] built until 70% of the residential
[5:07:15] is in place
[5:07:18] with the last
[5:07:19] occupancy of the 70th building, that's when
[5:07:21] they are not going
[5:07:23] to give it to them unless the park
[5:07:27] is complete. So it is
[5:07:29] a lot of coordination that they do
[5:07:33] for what the say
[5:07:35] in here and what goes underground thanks
[5:07:36] to
[5:07:38] them, that they follow it through
[5:07:39] with all
[5:07:42] the capable staff that they
[5:07:44] have to help with their inspectors. And
[5:07:48] mostly important with
[5:07:49] the senior management that oversees and
[5:07:50] makes sure they have the tools they
[5:07:52] need to have to guetta had job done.
[5:07:57] >> thank you. Thank you so much.
[5:08:00] thank you
[5:08:02] so much. So we will go onto the next presentation.
[5:08:03] >>
[5:08:04] thank
[5:08:06] you.
[5:08:07] >> thank you so much. Great job.
[5:09:12] >> okay, great. >> so
[5:09:15] I'll turn this
[5:09:18] over to sam. And
[5:09:21] let sam
[5:09:23] introduce his colleagues up here.
[5:09:27] >> yes, so ladies
[5:09:29] and gentlemen of the panel board,
[5:09:30] I'm
[5:09:32] with montgomery county department
[5:09:33] of services,
[5:09:36] land development services
[5:09:39] right of way, the section. With
[5:09:45] me,
[5:09:48] she's got the
[5:09:51] manager for --yes. The
[5:09:57] resource manager over at dps.
[5:10:00] so
[5:10:03] thank you for your time
[5:10:06] and for staff for helping me put
[5:10:07] it this presentation together. We
[5:10:09] find it really helpful and think
[5:10:12] it goes a long
[5:10:15] way. Other thing we wanted to say,
[5:10:18] we packed so much material
[5:10:21] in this presentation,
[5:10:23] and we certainly don't want to have
[5:10:24] it be
[5:10:26] a presentation, so please feel free to
[5:10:27] stop
[5:10:30] me or if you have any
[5:10:33] question or want some clarification
[5:10:34] on
[5:10:35] the items, then we will be more than
[5:10:36] happy to add
[5:10:39] some more clarification
[5:10:42] and explanation to
[5:10:45] make it as clear as possible. So the
[5:10:47] department of permit services, the
[5:10:48] right of way section has three main functions.
[5:10:55] the first one is we take
[5:10:58] part in
[5:11:00] the entitlement process. We participate
[5:11:02] in the development review committee, and
[5:11:04] we
[5:11:07] provide all comments
[5:11:10] that are associated
[5:11:13] with public
[5:11:16] right of way. Montgomery
[5:11:17] county public provides those comments,
[5:11:19] all
[5:11:22] the way through
[5:11:23] the preliminary plan. That's all stages
[5:11:25] that will fall prior to
[5:11:28] that like the zoning change,
[5:11:31] all that. And dps,
[5:11:33] the right of way section, provides
[5:11:34] that
[5:11:36] for site plan. So due to the site
[5:11:37] plan, we'll take the lead. Before
[5:11:40] that, they are the lead for
[5:11:43] providing right of
[5:11:45] way comments. Second function of the
[5:11:49] right of way
[5:11:52] section is for
[5:11:55] issuing permits. So whenever
[5:11:58] we have improvements during the entitlement
[5:11:59] process, adopted by the planning board, then
[5:12:01] the next
[5:12:04] stage is for them to apply
[5:12:07] for permit, so they could
[5:12:09] construct it. Dps, by law, administers
[5:12:12] all right of way permits. By that,
[5:12:13] I mean,
[5:12:16] they will need to review them, approve
[5:12:17] them, and inspects
[5:12:18] them to make sure everything is done
[5:12:19] according
[5:12:22] to what was
[5:12:23] approved by their planning board. In
[5:12:28] the third
[5:12:30] function that we do is about record
[5:12:31] plats and
[5:12:32] the dps right of way section, along with
[5:12:34] park and planning,
[5:12:37] the planning board, and
[5:12:40] the planning section, review
[5:12:43] and approve
[5:12:44] all subdivision record plats. One
[5:12:46] that we'll
[5:12:49] provide more details on all the issues later in the presentation.
[5:12:55] so
[5:12:58] where
[5:13:01] are these
[5:13:04] improvements applicable? The two
[5:13:06] instances that we require this improvement, such as
[5:13:07] the improvements that are adopted
[5:13:10] as a part of the entitlement.
[5:13:13] the first and more visible
[5:13:16] one relates
[5:13:19] to all montgomery county
[5:13:20] maintained roadways. And the second
[5:13:25] one, which is not, doesn't
[5:13:28] come to mind
[5:13:31] as easily is about public easements.
[5:13:37] that
[5:13:40] is for
[5:13:43] public use. The improvements
[5:13:46] for permitting, for our review
[5:13:49] will kick in. The public
[5:13:50] easement could include stone drain
[5:13:52] easement, they could include
[5:13:55] the public easement,
[5:13:58] what have you. So that is
[5:14:00] the second place that all their requirements
[5:14:01] that
[5:14:02] are related to public right of way will apply.
[5:14:13] so the next thing
[5:14:16] that
[5:14:19] we'll have
[5:14:21] to consider is when these requirements
[5:14:22] that
[5:14:25] apply to right of way
[5:14:28] improvements apply and they need
[5:14:31] to be decided. As I mentioned
[5:14:33] earlier, montgomery county department
[5:14:34] of transportation
[5:14:37] provides all right of way related
[5:14:38] comments during
[5:14:40] the entire
[5:14:42] process, up to and including preliminary
[5:14:46] plan, which they will be approved
[5:14:49] by the members of the
[5:14:52] planning board
[5:14:53] and become legally binding. Right
[5:14:55] of
[5:14:57] way section of dps reviews all those
[5:14:58] during the site plan process.
[5:15:04] and those requirements, again, will
[5:15:05] get adopted by the planning board.
[5:15:12] so then there are some requirements
[5:15:13] that, I wouldn't
[5:15:16] say requirement, but there are some
[5:15:17] improvements that fib had can apply for.
[5:15:22] and they are not subject
[5:15:25] to the
[5:15:26] entitlement process. For example,
[5:15:28] somebody wants to connect their sub
[5:15:30] pump to our county drainage facilities
[5:15:31] or the
[5:15:34] utility company
[5:15:36] wants to repair their infrastructure. Those
[5:15:37] types of improvements
[5:15:40] are not
[5:15:41] subject to the entitlement process,
[5:15:43] but they do require a right
[5:15:46] of way
[5:15:49] permit, which our office administers.
[5:15:57] and our review applies to anything
[5:15:58] or I should
[5:16:01] say everything
[5:16:03] within the right of way. It could
[5:16:04] be side wall,
[5:16:07] it could be
[5:16:10] utilities,
[5:16:13] drainage facilities, street lights, street
[5:16:14] trees. All
[5:16:16] streetscapes that have
[5:16:19] been adopted during
[5:16:22] the entire process. They also include
[5:16:25] the special such as the
[5:16:28] strict
[5:16:31] part of them, streetscape --
[5:16:34] streetscape. The
[5:16:37] next function dps does is review the record plats.
[5:16:43] and we do
[5:16:46] it alongside
[5:16:49] with the planning board
[5:16:51] and planning department. But we specifically
[5:16:52] reviewed record plats
[5:16:57] from two point of views. Number one
[5:16:58] is from public
[5:17:01] right of way. And the second
[5:17:04] one, we
[5:17:06] expect to management and floodplains. When
[5:17:07] we
[5:17:09] review record plats for public right
[5:17:10] of way, we make sure
[5:17:13] all of the
[5:17:15] right of ways and easements are in
[5:17:17] place. By the way, the
[5:17:20] right of ways and
[5:17:21] easements can be used interchangeably
[5:17:23] and from the legal point
[5:17:24] of view, they are subject to the same
[5:17:26] part of the county law.
[5:17:29] we make sure
[5:17:30] all the improvements, all the easements
[5:17:31] and the right of way are in place.
[5:17:38] we also make sure all
[5:17:39] improvements that we're adopted by
[5:17:41] the planning board in the
[5:17:42] time of entitlement process, pretty
[5:17:44] much the
[5:17:47] site plan are bonded. By doing
[5:17:50] so, we
[5:17:53] ensure
[5:17:56] that those improvements
[5:17:57] are implemented because of bonding improvement
[5:17:59] means, in case the applicant is
[5:18:00] not able to finish the improvements,
[5:18:02] the
[5:18:04] county can use the bond and finish it.
[5:18:08] we
[5:18:11] also make sure they
[5:18:14] are specified under record plats. There
[5:18:17] are a lot of things that need to
[5:18:20] be
[5:18:21] specified on the record plats. There
[5:18:23] are easements that need to be
[5:18:25] shown on the record plats. A lot of
[5:18:26] them
[5:18:27] cannot be done by means of plat because
[5:18:29] of the amount of the
[5:18:32] provisions that we have in each
[5:18:33] easement document. We cannot do them,
[5:18:35] but we
[5:18:38] have to reference them on the
[5:18:41] plat, especially
[5:18:43] if they are existing. We also make
[5:18:44] sure all
[5:18:47] the legal processes are
[5:18:49] done. Those are the processes that will
[5:18:51] lead to determination of the exact
[5:18:53] extent of
[5:18:56] the easement or the
[5:18:59] right of
[5:19:01] way. Also they would expect stormwater
[5:19:02] management,
[5:19:04] for the public right of way, we make sure
[5:19:08] all easements are in
[5:19:09] place, the floodplain buffers, what have
[5:19:11] you. All of
[5:19:14] them are specified and all
[5:19:17] prerequisites
[5:19:20] legal and technical processes are complete.
[5:19:23] we'll pass it on to mark
[5:19:26] for the stormwater management
[5:19:28] section.
[5:19:29] >> thanks. Again, I'm the
[5:19:30] water resources for
[5:19:32] dps. Can you guys hear me okay?
[5:19:35] I'm
[5:19:38] often asked to talk louder. Yeah,
[5:19:41] I apologize ahead
[5:19:43] of time. I'm getting over a little cough. My
[5:19:44] beautiful
[5:19:46] voice isn't what it use today be. I'll
[5:19:47] talk
[5:19:50] a little bit
[5:19:53] about stormwater
[5:19:54] management and sediment control. We'll
[5:19:56] go over a little bit of the overview,
[5:19:57] so put this in perspective for you guys.
[5:20:02] stormwater management is
[5:20:05] primarily a
[5:20:07] --an environmental mitigation process. We
[5:20:08] look
[5:20:10] to reduce environmental impacts that
[5:20:12] occur due to development, which can
[5:20:14] cause decreases in runoff a,
[5:20:16] go into the drainage system. They
[5:20:17] can cause increases
[5:20:19] in pollutants that run off into the stream
[5:20:20] system, and they could also
[5:20:22] reduce the amount of water that soaks
[5:20:23] into the
[5:20:26] ground that is very important
[5:20:28] to recharge those systems for their
[5:20:29] health. That
[5:20:30] basically relies on the groundwater recharge, so
[5:20:32] the e are ductions
[5:20:34] have to be balanced out. Again, as
[5:20:35] I
[5:20:36] said, this is an environmental mitigation
[5:20:38] that is intended to reduce the
[5:20:40] types of impacts that I just mentioned. This
[5:20:41] is generally
[5:20:43] done by slowing down and reducing
[5:20:47] the amount of developed runoff, filtering
[5:20:49] out pollutants, and encouraging that
[5:20:51] infiltration of water back into the
[5:20:52] ground. Some of the practices that
[5:20:53] we have
[5:20:56] used that you've seen
[5:20:59] many times are drywells, rain gardens,
[5:21:00] infiltration
[5:21:02] practices, things of
[5:21:05] that
[5:21:06] sort. Next slide, please? The standards
[5:21:08] that we
[5:21:09] look at for stormwater management,
[5:21:11] are actually set by the state of management
[5:21:13] as part of their stormwater management
[5:21:14] program. We will review
[5:21:16] for those compliance items through
[5:21:17] the delegation of
[5:21:20] authority from the state to review
[5:21:22] on their behalf. They do come out,
[5:21:23] evaluating our program, routinely
[5:21:24] every
[5:21:25] three years to make sure we're staying on
[5:21:26] track and
[5:21:27] doing the things they want us to do.
[5:21:32] our stormwater requirements are
[5:21:35] found in chapter 19
[5:21:38] in the county code. They actually
[5:21:39] review those requirements before we
[5:21:40] enact those to make sure they are
[5:21:41] in compliance with
[5:21:42] the state model ordinance before we
[5:21:44] enact those in the code. The last
[5:21:45] time we
[5:21:47] did that was in july of 2010.
[5:21:48] that's what we did. We went back and
[5:21:50] forth with the state, back
[5:21:52] and forth with the council, back and
[5:21:53] forth with everybody that we could
[5:21:55] think of to try to get everything
[5:21:56] in line with everybody's requirements before
[5:21:59] they went into code. But I
[5:22:02] want to stress that we do our
[5:22:03] reviews through the delegation of
[5:22:05] authority, initially from the state
[5:22:06] of maryland
[5:22:08] to review on their behalf.
[5:22:10] when we do review stormwater for compliance,
[5:22:11] we work primarily
[5:22:14] with the one
[5:22:16] year storm event. It is a statistical
[5:22:17] one year event,
[5:22:19] based on recorded rainfall data that
[5:22:23] we would have historically collected. Right
[5:22:24] now,
[5:22:26] that rainfall event is a
[5:22:29] 24-hour
[5:22:32] one-year event of 2.6 inches. Recently
[5:22:33] the
[5:22:34] analysis were reviewed and some of
[5:22:35] the
[5:22:37] larger storm events were corrected because
[5:22:38] additional information has come
[5:22:41] in, as part of climate change
[5:22:43] to change those. Interestingly enough,
[5:22:44] the one-year storm event stayed right
[5:22:46] where it was, partly because we have
[5:22:47] so much one
[5:22:49] year data because that's the most frequent
[5:22:50] storm data that we have. It is hard
[5:22:53] to change that to statistics without
[5:22:54] a lot of additional data.
[5:22:56] that's
[5:22:59] the one year 24-hour event of 2.6
[5:23:02] inches is the arena in which we
[5:23:03] look for compliance primarily. So
[5:23:05] it is not a big storm event.
[5:23:08] the goal that
[5:23:10] we have is to modify the developed flows
[5:23:11] to reduce
[5:23:14] the impacts to the ultimate
[5:23:16] receiving stream system. That is the
[5:23:17] overall goal we're looking
[5:23:23] for to maintain healthy streams.
[5:23:29] from the early 70s.
[5:23:35] >>
[5:23:38] and the review process. They have
[5:23:41] to obtain approval
[5:23:42] of the stormwater management concept
[5:23:44] from dps, prior to go to the board,
[5:23:47] if they are going through the planning
[5:23:48] process. So we
[5:23:50] want to make sure we look at these
[5:23:53] to see if
[5:23:56] they are using the
[5:23:59] right assumptions, using the
[5:24:00] right standards. They have given us
[5:24:02] enough information as a part
[5:24:05] of our review on the level, that they are
[5:24:08] confident that
[5:24:11] they are making
[5:24:14] those assumptions. What they're proposing
[5:24:17] appears to be --things like that,
[5:24:18] we have the
[5:24:19] benefit at the stage of looking at
[5:24:20] a
[5:24:23] lot of real design data. We really
[5:24:26] see what those plans look like. When
[5:24:27] we are going
[5:24:28] through something, and I'll probably talk
[5:24:29] about this in a little bit in a minute,
[5:24:30] we
[5:24:31] are going through something like a single-family
[5:24:32] lot that is
[5:24:34] being subdivided from one lot into three,
[5:24:35] for example. We
[5:24:38] don't have a lot
[5:24:41] of exact design data to go on
[5:24:44] because we don't have design plans
[5:24:45] for the most
[5:24:46] part. So we are looking to see if
[5:24:50] we have enough data that we have confidence. By
[5:24:51] the way,
[5:24:53] this is also a state requirement
[5:24:56] that is
[5:24:58] in the state model ordinance, but
[5:24:59] we do that for the
[5:25:01] planning board to make sure that we
[5:25:02] are comfortable, that there
[5:25:05] is nothing from the stormwater management
[5:25:06] standpoint that is
[5:25:08] likely to change the layout of the
[5:25:12] project later
[5:25:14] on in a substantial way. Let's see. Make
[5:25:15] sure
[5:25:16] I'm not completely off track here. My
[5:25:18] eyes
[5:25:21] aren't
[5:25:24] what they used to be.
[5:25:30] this comes up all
[5:25:31] the time. It is important to note
[5:25:34] that while our stormwater management practices,
[5:25:36] may
[5:25:38] have some impact on reducing the overall
[5:25:39] amount of
[5:25:41] storm flow to some degree, that they
[5:25:42] are not
[5:25:45] intended and they really
[5:25:48] don't serve
[5:25:53] as flood protection as property protection. We
[5:25:54] do have
[5:25:55] a document we put together on the
[5:25:57] website, that's called
[5:25:58] surface drainage, that will go into
[5:26:00] that in much more detail,
[5:26:02] and it was written to us in corporation
[5:26:03] with
[5:26:04] our legal council. So it's a very
[5:26:05] good document. I urge you to take
[5:26:06] a look
[5:26:08] at it. I won't get into that too much more,
[5:26:09] unless you have specific questions
[5:26:12] about it today. I just want
[5:26:15] to point
[5:26:17] out, our main purpose is maintaining healthy
[5:26:18] stream systems,
[5:26:20] that we do not get directly involved
[5:26:21] in the civil
[5:26:24] aspects of
[5:26:25] the runoff issues very often. Next slide, please?
[5:26:32] just to shake it up a little bit,
[5:26:33] and then I'll
[5:26:36] come back and bore you with
[5:26:39] the
[5:26:42] last two slides.
[5:26:43] >>
[5:26:44] yes.
[5:26:45] >> so just to follow on what mark
[5:26:46] mentioned,
[5:26:48] when we would talk about developments, essentially
[5:26:51] what they do is
[5:26:54] they will pave over
[5:26:59] what used to be surface. So once they
[5:27:00] create
[5:27:03] the area, they are
[5:27:06] going to
[5:27:07] increase the amount of runoff. So
[5:27:09] what you used
[5:27:12] to percolate into the
[5:27:14] ground becomes like a recharge is
[5:27:16] now going to flow off the property
[5:27:18] and come towards
[5:27:21] the right of way. So the
[5:27:24] amount of flow will maintain
[5:27:27] the right of way, associating the
[5:27:30] drainage system that will
[5:27:33] increase. So once that
[5:27:36] happens, we have to gauge the
[5:27:39] amount of increase of runoff,
[5:27:40] which could translate to increasing
[5:27:45] the flow. It can be accommodated
[5:27:46] by the downstream existing public facilities or not.
[5:27:53] if they can accommodate the additional increase,
[5:27:57] that would be great. But if
[5:28:00] they cannot, then the applicant
[5:28:03] has a couple
[5:28:05] of choices. Either they are going
[5:28:06] to
[5:28:09] upgrade the existing county,
[5:28:12] stormwater drainage facile
[5:28:15] I its, to ensure the capacity
[5:28:18] is there or if they could
[5:28:21] decrease the amount of runoff in
[5:28:24] their property to make sure
[5:28:27] the
[5:28:28] water is held on property. Release
[5:28:30] the
[5:28:33] control matter, so it does
[5:28:36] not down the system. If
[5:28:39] it's picked, the applicant needs
[5:28:41] to modify the stormwater management
[5:28:42] concept
[5:28:45] to design this system,
[5:28:47] to incorporate the system into their
[5:28:50] preliminary approval, which is going
[5:28:51] to go to the
[5:28:55] preliminary plan with the approval.
[5:29:00] now --
[5:29:01] >> do you go
[5:29:03] back --I just
[5:29:04] want to make sure. I think I know,
[5:29:06] but I want
[5:29:09] to confirm
[5:29:12] that everybody knows. So dps
[5:29:15] does review when,
[5:29:17] if the additional storm drain comes
[5:29:20] to public right of way? Separate the
[5:29:21] stormwater management,
[5:29:24] okay? So before they
[5:29:27] do a stormwater management,
[5:29:30] dps makes
[5:29:32] sure that there is not additional
[5:29:33] storm drain to
[5:29:36] the public right
[5:29:37] of way, correct?
[5:29:38] >> it's depending on
[5:29:39] where we are
[5:29:40] in the entitlement process. Let's
[5:29:42] say
[5:29:44] we're in the preliminary plan. The
[5:29:45] code
[5:29:48] requires montgomery county
[5:29:51] department of transportation to
[5:29:54] make sure
[5:29:57] the downstream drainage system has enough
[5:29:58] capacity
[5:29:59] for the development.
[5:30:00] >> so they coordinate with the developer
[5:30:01] to
[5:30:03] make sure that
[5:30:06] case happens?
[5:30:07] >> yes. >> I want to
[5:30:08] distinguish
[5:30:09] this. When it is, and mark, you discussed
[5:30:10] it. If it
[5:30:12] is --because we will get a lot
[5:30:15] of people here that they say
[5:30:18] the development of
[5:30:21] this property,
[5:30:24] next
[5:30:27] to me, is adding storm drain to
[5:30:30] my property. At that
[5:30:33] time, you know,
[5:30:36] that is on
[5:30:39] the civil engineer. That's the
[5:30:42] responsibility between the two
[5:30:44] property owners. The property owner
[5:30:45] that originally is doing the development
[5:30:48] or they are making it, you
[5:30:51] know, two families. They are making
[5:30:54] adu, or they are adding,
[5:30:57] increasing the footprint or
[5:30:59] adding additional, whatever. It's
[5:31:00] their responsibility
[5:31:03] to make
[5:31:06] sure that this drainage doesn't impact
[5:31:07] the
[5:31:08] property. The unfortunate thing in
[5:31:09] here
[5:31:12] is that if they come to disagreement,
[5:31:15] I don't think it's dps or anybody
[5:31:18] else that can resolve this agreement. Because most of
[5:31:20] the time --
[5:31:21] >> that's a runoff issue
[5:31:22] you're talking about that
[5:31:23] I mentioned a minute ago. With that
[5:31:24] stuff now, we moved beyond
[5:31:25] the one year storm event, and I'm
[5:31:27] glad you asked this question. We are
[5:31:28] moving
[5:31:30] into the ten year storm event to look
[5:31:31] for
[5:31:32] adequate capacity in the receiving
[5:31:33] storm drain system.
[5:31:34] >> is it
[5:31:35] ten years or two years?
[5:31:36] >> ten years. It's
[5:31:37] the ten years
[5:31:38] for the storm drain system.
[5:31:39] >> for
[5:31:40] the storm
[5:31:41] drain system? But for the lot-to-lot
[5:31:42] drainage, what
[5:31:45] do they look at? If
[5:31:47] it is not lot-to-lot drainage?
[5:31:48] >> in
[5:31:49] some cases, we
[5:31:51] ask the engineer to show us
[5:31:53] the studies that they have performed
[5:31:54] to show they've done their
[5:31:57] due diligence for their effect on
[5:31:58] lot-to-lot runoff. We asked
[5:32:00] them to do that in the ten-year storm
[5:32:01] event.
[5:32:02] >>
[5:32:03] ten years?
[5:32:04] >> ten years. We ask them
[5:32:05] to check the ten year to show
[5:32:06] they have done due diligence on their
[5:32:07] part. We don't
[5:32:09] review that study, but we may ask
[5:32:10] them to
[5:32:11] show us what they've done. We may
[5:32:12] ask them to
[5:32:14] show us notes when they visited the
[5:32:15] property, who they spoke to
[5:32:18] as well, if we have a real
[5:32:20] concern about the lot-to-lot runoff
[5:32:21] issue. What sam is
[5:32:25] getting to
[5:32:27] here is this area of runoff review
[5:32:28] where we
[5:32:29] actually do move beyond the one year
[5:32:31] storm event,
[5:32:34] which I mentioned before. From
[5:32:36] the capacity and conveyance standpoint
[5:32:37] through
[5:32:38] the public storm drain system.
[5:32:39] >>
[5:32:40] that's the ten year.
[5:32:41] >> that's the
[5:32:42] ten year. We have
[5:32:43] to make sure the proposed
[5:32:44] development doesn't increase flow
[5:32:46] to a point where the
[5:32:47] receiving storm drain system cannot
[5:32:49] handle it. That's more
[5:32:51] of a public safety issue because if
[5:32:52] it can't
[5:32:53] handle it, then the water could back
[5:32:55] up on the
[5:32:57] road, into the roadway, and become
[5:32:58] a nuance
[5:33:01] or a danger during storm events
[5:33:03] for motorists. So we have them check
[5:33:04] that. The other
[5:33:06] reason we check that and back to what
[5:33:07] sam
[5:33:08] mentioned a minute ago. They have
[5:33:10] two options if
[5:33:13] they are increasing the flow and
[5:33:15] the receiving system can't handle it. This is
[5:33:17] county storm drain or other municipalities
[5:33:19] that will own a public
[5:33:22] system. They will
[5:33:25] have to check that. They have two
[5:33:27] options. They can upgrade the existing storm
[5:33:28] drain system, potentially, upsize
[5:33:30] the pipes, so they could convey that
[5:33:31] flow
[5:33:34] and keep it off the
[5:33:37] roadway. Or they can provide that additional storage
[5:33:40] for the ten year
[5:33:43] storm on the project itself, and
[5:33:44] slowly release it through the small
[5:33:46] thing to slowly
[5:33:48] ease it in to the storm drain system
[5:33:49] in a way they
[5:33:52] could convey it over a
[5:33:54] longer period of time. Where that
[5:33:55] involves site layout is if
[5:33:58] you are storing ten years worth of
[5:34:00] runoff on a project, that takes up
[5:34:04] a lot of room. That's where
[5:34:07] we can have layout changes come in
[5:34:08] to
[5:34:09] play. Public schools will get into
[5:34:10] the situations
[5:34:12] sometimes because they're allowable
[5:34:13] in residential zones. But
[5:34:15] in some cases, the surrounding storm
[5:34:19] drain system that is already
[5:34:20] in existence was sized, predicting
[5:34:22] there would be houses there instead
[5:34:24] of the big dense public schools. So
[5:34:27] you'll see some public schools with
[5:34:31] ten year control
[5:34:32] on those projects. That's specifically
[5:34:34] for conveyance of that flow to
[5:34:36] get it safely into the public system,
[5:34:37] so it
[5:34:39] doesn't cause danger to the motoring
[5:34:40] public.
[5:34:41] >> I understand
[5:34:43] that. But I think that
[5:34:46] what we need some guidance
[5:34:49] is lot
[5:34:52] to lot. Because we
[5:34:55] have a
[5:34:57] lot of unhappy public that they are
[5:34:58] against, especially
[5:35:01] right now that
[5:35:04] we
[5:35:05] are thinking about having some rezoning
[5:35:07] that
[5:35:10] they could
[5:35:13] have, you know, duplex or
[5:35:14] threplexes. That would increase, you know, the runoff a.
[5:35:22] so then we would receive a lot of
[5:35:25] complaints from the neighbors that
[5:35:28] that increase, it's
[5:35:31] coming right to my yard. What is
[5:35:34] the right response to give us? I
[5:35:37] don't want to put
[5:35:39] you on the spot.
[5:35:40] >> the right response
[5:35:41] is on our county website that
[5:35:42] was put together by the legal staff
[5:35:43] to try to
[5:35:45] clarify the situation for them. It
[5:35:46] isn't anything in chapter 19 that
[5:35:49] we can, that we have any design
[5:35:51] standards for. There's reasons for
[5:35:52] that, but I don't want to go
[5:35:53] too far into that unless you really want to.
[5:35:58] for the
[5:36:00] document, it's a civil issue. Now,
[5:36:01] it's
[5:36:03] okay to increase runoff from one lot
[5:36:04] to another. That is
[5:36:07] not a problem, as long as there
[5:36:09] is conveyance that doesn't cause property
[5:36:10] damage or, you know,
[5:36:12] something worse.
[5:36:13] >> so basically it
[5:36:14] is
[5:36:16] on the engineers to make sure that sign-off.
[5:36:17] >>
[5:36:18] not
[5:36:19] to set up the situation where they
[5:36:20] damage
[5:36:22] adjacent property. We are not in
[5:36:24] the property protection business with stormwater
[5:36:25] management. There's
[5:36:28] a whole world of claims, looking
[5:36:31] to see if that claim is valid. Making
[5:36:32] it
[5:36:34] a decision, who is responsible for
[5:36:35] damage. And
[5:36:36] if damage hasn't even occurred yet,
[5:36:37] which is
[5:36:38] where most of the concerns happen,
[5:36:40] we don't even know if it will
[5:36:43] take place until it happens, so that is
[5:36:46] where they get involved.
[5:36:47] >> but dps
[5:36:49] does inspect when
[5:36:52] the project goes under the construction,
[5:36:53] does
[5:36:54] inspect the requirement that the civil engineer
[5:36:55] has signed off,
[5:36:58] that this is not
[5:36:59] going to make an impact. And if it
[5:37:01] is reality that will make
[5:37:03] them impact, then I guess --
[5:37:04] >> we
[5:37:05] don't review
[5:37:07] to see it. We don't necessarily have any design
[5:37:08] standards
[5:37:10] to review whether or not there is
[5:37:13] going to be an impact to someone's property
[5:37:14] as
[5:37:16] a result of runoff from the development. We
[5:37:17] don't have that
[5:37:18] in the code. In the document, I'm
[5:37:20] talking to you about
[5:37:21] this. I referenced you to the website.
[5:37:22] >>
[5:37:23] yeah, yeah, I
[5:37:25] know what it is.
[5:37:26] >> we do have, on
[5:37:27] our
[5:37:29] plans, a statement that
[5:37:32] the engineer must sign that
[5:37:33] is before we approve the plans, that
[5:37:35] says I understand, it's in
[5:37:37] the state model ordinance for stormwater and
[5:37:38] in
[5:37:39] the county, chapter 19, that approval
[5:37:40] of this stormwater management plan
[5:37:44] does not e are leave
[5:37:46] me of my responsibility for the results
[5:37:51] of my development on adjacent properties. I
[5:37:53] understand that's
[5:37:55] my responsibility, and I have investigated
[5:37:56] this. If
[5:37:58] there are any requirement easements,
[5:37:59] letters of
[5:38:00] permission that are required under
[5:38:02] state law, I have given a copy
[5:38:05] of those to dps
[5:38:08] for their files. They signed that
[5:38:09] statement. We also have a direct quote
[5:38:11] from the code
[5:38:13] on all the planned approval documents,
[5:38:14] the planned approval
[5:38:16] blocks that says right out of the
[5:38:17] code,
[5:38:20] approval of this is not
[5:38:22] going to remove the responsibility
[5:38:23] from
[5:38:25] the engineers on the effects of the runoff. We
[5:38:29] are
[5:38:30] doing this for environmental mitigation purposes
[5:38:32] only, that's what this permit
[5:38:34] is for. I understand there's a lot
[5:38:35] of concerns that will
[5:38:37] go on when they see a development
[5:38:38] going
[5:38:41] on next door, and
[5:38:43] I understand why that's going to happen. Unless
[5:38:45] something has occurred, we are predicting
[5:38:47] that there will be damage.
[5:38:48] >>
[5:38:50] so my
[5:38:51] question was not that. That has happened.
[5:38:55] does that have any role or not? It
[5:38:56] is going to
[5:38:59] go to that and has to go.
[5:39:02] >> now, during construction f there is
[5:39:04] a concern, we could have our inspectors
[5:39:05] take a
[5:39:06] look and sometimes things do get built
[5:39:07] wrong there, is a problem that doesn't
[5:39:08] go the way
[5:39:10] it should and we have to get on the contractor
[5:39:11] to fix something. That's
[5:39:13] why we have inspection staff out there
[5:39:14] all
[5:39:17] the time, looking at these
[5:39:20] things. Certainly we're
[5:39:22] on top of that part. The rainfall
[5:39:23] events happen. Maybe
[5:39:25] it's a rainfall event like one of
[5:39:26] these
[5:39:28] large catastrophic ones we've been
[5:39:29] having. It's above and beyond
[5:39:31] anything we've designed for and damage occurs. Someone
[5:39:32] has to
[5:39:34] make a claim and they have to make
[5:39:35] that claim
[5:39:37] to determine if they are necessary. That's a
[5:39:38] civil issue.
[5:39:39] >> okay,
[5:39:40] thank you. I just wanted to make sure
[5:39:41] that all of
[5:39:42] us will understand that. Thank you.
[5:39:44] >> thank you. I would
[5:39:47] like to add one
[5:39:50] more caveat to that discussion,
[5:39:51] and that is the county code, actually,
[5:39:53] this
[5:39:55] is not in chapter 49, which is the
[5:39:56] chapter that will
[5:39:59] deal
[5:40:02] with public right of way. The building,
[5:40:05] which is chapter eight, has the
[5:40:08] provision that will say if
[5:40:11] you add the
[5:40:13] addition to a lot with certain characteristics,
[5:40:14] they will
[5:40:17] need to be listed enough.
[5:40:20] and the
[5:40:23] amount of additions to be more
[5:40:26] than 400 square feet or
[5:40:29] adus, for example,
[5:40:32] because
[5:40:34] you mentioned it. In cases like that,
[5:40:35] you
[5:40:38] need to provide
[5:40:41] some measures for
[5:40:44] that. And the lot
[5:40:47] is 11,000 square feet. We have
[5:40:53] certain measures outlined
[5:40:56] in the county, that would try
[5:40:59] to lesson impact of that
[5:41:02] addition or that development
[5:41:05] to the next door neighbor. That
[5:41:06] applies under the certain circumstances.
[5:41:07] >>
[5:41:08] it's a
[5:41:11] part of
[5:41:14] the building code?
[5:41:15] >> yes, yes. >>
[5:41:16] so just
[5:41:17] to piggyback on what mark said. What
[5:41:18] I
[5:41:20] mentioned earlier will apply to the
[5:41:22] county right of way and associated drainage structures.
[5:41:26] it
[5:41:29] doesn't
[5:41:31] really apply to lot-to-lot runoff.
[5:41:32] okay. Now, I'm going to get
[5:41:35] into a little
[5:41:38] bit of the technical comparison
[5:41:40] between the storm drain and storm
[5:41:41] management. Please let me
[5:41:44] know if there is any ambiguity,
[5:41:47] I could open it further. But as mark
[5:41:50] said, storm drain system
[5:41:53] is designed based on larger storms. Where
[5:41:56] we talk about
[5:41:59] larger storms, they
[5:42:02] are the ones
[5:42:04] that happen in the smaller frequencies. For
[5:42:05] example, the snowstorm
[5:42:08] that we're
[5:42:11] going to get
[5:42:12] this weekend. That's considered large
[5:42:14] storm. It has very low frequency. It
[5:42:15] will
[5:42:17] happen every 20 years, 50 years
[5:42:19] or what have you. The storm drainage
[5:42:20] system
[5:42:24] in the county
[5:42:26] is designed based on ten-year storms. To
[5:42:28] be the other jurisdiction. For example,
[5:42:31] state highway administration, designs
[5:42:32] are facilities for some 25-year storm.
[5:42:36] the
[5:42:37] stormwater management, however, as
[5:42:39] mark mentioned is
[5:42:41] normally designed based on one-year
[5:42:42] storms,
[5:42:43] which is being 2.6 inches. But ten
[5:42:45] year storms
[5:42:48] is between five and six
[5:42:51] inches. 25-year storm
[5:42:54] has been about seven inches. So
[5:42:56] our storm drainage facilities are
[5:42:57] designed
[5:43:00] to convey the large amount of runoff
[5:43:02] that happens when the large storm
[5:43:05] occurs. Which is completely different from the stormwater management design.
[5:43:11] now, public storm drain systems are under
[5:43:15] purview of chapter
[5:43:16] 49 of the county code. And they are
[5:43:17] maintained by the county department of transportation.
[5:43:23] private storm drain systems, however,
[5:43:24] they
[5:43:25] are mostly maintained by the property owner.
[5:43:27] I
[5:43:30] got to say by definition, the
[5:43:32] storm drainage system is public, if
[5:43:33] it
[5:43:36] contains a runoff from public
[5:43:39] right
[5:43:42] of way or public easement. And it's considered reverse of that.
[5:43:48] and also as
[5:43:51] I mentioned earlier in
[5:43:54] the prezzennation, montgomery
[5:43:55] county department of transportation reviews
[5:43:57] this storm
[5:43:59] drainage analysis and their impact
[5:44:00] on downstream
[5:44:01] system, during the preliminary planning
[5:44:02] process and all stages before that.
[5:44:06] and the right of way
[5:44:09] does it
[5:44:12] on the
[5:44:13] site plan, and the permit. To pass
[5:44:15] it on to mark
[5:44:18] to continue
[5:44:19] the comparison between the stormwater
[5:44:20] management.
[5:44:21] >> all right, back to me now.
[5:44:26] >> the storm drain verses the storm management continues.
[5:44:36] smaller storms, we catch
[5:44:39] it, we hold it, we soak it in
[5:44:42] the ground, we filter it, we
[5:44:43] work on it. Public storm drain, they
[5:44:45] will get the heck out of it
[5:44:47] there. They convey it and they get
[5:44:50] it off the roadway. It's a larger
[5:44:51] storm event,
[5:44:53] more impact to the voting public. Take
[5:44:54] it
[5:44:57] to where
[5:44:59] it needs to go. That's the basic difference between
[5:45:00] the two. They catch it,
[5:45:02] we catch it, hold on to it, massage
[5:45:06] it a little bit, hold
[5:45:07] better, then go into the system. What
[5:45:12] do we got here? What else?
[5:45:13] >>
[5:45:15] I have a
[5:45:18] question about storm water management. Is
[5:45:19] there
[5:45:20] an actual facility that filters the
[5:45:21] water?
[5:45:22] >> yes. >> that's
[5:45:24] a part of
[5:45:27] dps?
[5:45:28] >> yes. There's
[5:45:29] a whole series of those. Things like
[5:45:30] the dry well with the roof runoff
[5:45:32] and pipe it to an underground, a little
[5:45:33] box of rocks
[5:45:36] to get held there. The rocks will
[5:45:38] maintain the ratio, so they have a
[5:45:39] place to be stored. You can't
[5:45:42] go anywhere, but so can the
[5:45:44] ground. That filters, that provides ground
[5:45:45] water recharge. A
[5:45:48] little bit
[5:45:51] of runoff reduction. We have
[5:45:53] rain gardens, the practices, basically
[5:45:54] landscape areas that
[5:45:56] are designed to catch and hold the water portion of it.
[5:46:00] so it does soak into
[5:46:02] the ground. Some of these structures
[5:46:03] have the drains, so
[5:46:05] they don't soak everything into the
[5:46:06] ground. Maybe
[5:46:08] they are not compatible with all that much infiltration.
[5:46:15] clays, things like that, they really
[5:46:17] don't soak into the ground really well. It
[5:46:18] catches
[5:46:21] it, it slows it
[5:46:24] down, then it drains
[5:46:26] what can't soak in and beyond.
[5:46:27] >>
[5:46:28] is
[5:46:30] this
[5:46:33] similar to what they have?
[5:46:34] >>
[5:46:35] completely different from the system. They don't
[5:46:36] want any rain water getting into their system.
[5:46:39] the only
[5:46:42] water they want to have is why it comes
[5:46:43] out
[5:46:45] of the hose, goes back into the toilet
[5:46:46] or
[5:46:48] your sink. That circular
[5:46:50] thing. They don't want water coming into
[5:46:51] their system. They want to account for
[5:46:54] it as much as they can where they
[5:46:55] are constantly fighting for
[5:46:56] that. That's a different type of treatment
[5:46:57] and that
[5:46:59] is for sanitary sewer and public water delivery.
[5:47:03] >> is your
[5:47:06] department --do you all have
[5:47:09] a program for rain barrels for residents
[5:47:10] or do
[5:47:11] you have that program or rain barrel?
[5:47:12] >>
[5:47:13] kind of a
[5:47:15] branch to answer that one. Rain barrels
[5:47:16] are
[5:47:18] approved in the state manual and in
[5:47:22] chapter 19 of the code for
[5:47:25] use
[5:47:26] as stormwater management treatment practices. They're
[5:47:28] rarely used because they don't
[5:47:29] provide much treatment at all. Rain
[5:47:31] barrel programs, and
[5:47:33] this is perfect timing. I was just
[5:47:34] about to
[5:47:36] mention montgomery county department
[5:47:37] of environmental protection. They
[5:47:38] have
[5:47:40] rain barrel programs and they
[5:47:43] have a rain program that
[5:47:45] is not regulatory. There is no requirement standards
[5:47:46] for
[5:47:49] their stuff in their
[5:47:52] program, but they
[5:47:53] help people manage runoff on their property
[5:47:55] and do similar
[5:47:56] things the stormwater management do. One
[5:47:58] of the stuff they promote
[5:47:59] is rain gardens and rain barrels.
[5:48:09] >> vision the division that shows
[5:48:10] the visual parcel
[5:48:13] and determines whether or
[5:48:14] not the parcel percolates?
[5:48:15] >> we require
[5:48:16] as
[5:48:19] part of our review that
[5:48:20] they do a geotechnical investigation. If
[5:48:22] it's going through the planning
[5:48:24] process, it's a formal infiltration
[5:48:25] test
[5:48:28] that a firm has to
[5:48:31] go out and do based on certain
[5:48:33] standards for percolating. If it's a
[5:48:34] single-family teardown and they
[5:48:36] are building a new one, we have an
[5:48:38] abbreviated form of that. But they
[5:48:40] still have to get soil data,
[5:48:42] so we see how much and what the soils
[5:48:43] look
[5:48:45] like and how much infiltration the
[5:48:46] soils could probably take. Now,
[5:48:49] when we get
[5:48:51] to the septic section of the discussion,
[5:48:52] we can
[5:48:55] talk about septic fields and their
[5:48:56] percolation
[5:48:57] requirements because they have those requirements
[5:48:58] as well that I won't get
[5:49:00] into because I will have to make it
[5:49:01] all up. But we'll
[5:49:03] have the expert here to tell you about
[5:49:04] it on that step. This is why
[5:49:07] we're here a little bit because there
[5:49:08] are
[5:49:09] so many things that happen with water and
[5:49:10] runoff that
[5:49:12] it is hard to determine who is doing
[5:49:13] what. Believe me, we
[5:49:16] get all
[5:49:19] kinds of mixed questions
[5:49:20] from everybody, constantly through
[5:49:21] 311, everybody in our own department, asking
[5:49:22] us
[5:49:23] questions that are not permanent to the specialty.
[5:49:28] we, and stormwater management, filter and
[5:49:31] feed the storms for base flow
[5:49:35] by infiltrating for environmental
[5:49:37] mitigation purposes. They
[5:49:39] will give people portable water, treats
[5:49:40] the affluent right of
[5:49:42] way, takes those larger storms and
[5:49:43] make sure they don't back up
[5:49:46] into the street
[5:49:47] to cause people to hydroplane, and
[5:49:49] convey it
[5:49:52] to a safe location. Their conveyance
[5:49:53] is work treatment,
[5:49:55] and provides
[5:49:57] it and treats it. For consumption
[5:49:58] and use.
[5:49:59] >> so mark,
[5:50:01] for based on what you
[5:50:04] said, I would like to add something
[5:50:05] else. Correct
[5:50:07] me if I'm wrong.
[5:50:08] >> I'm not surprised. >>
[5:50:09] I
[5:50:10] think it is good
[5:50:13] for all of us to understand because
[5:50:16] when rainfalls come, okay.
[5:50:17] >>
[5:50:18] yes.
[5:50:19] >> the first, I think, I would say
[5:50:20] I don't know if that
[5:50:22] is the same one yet,
[5:50:24] but the stormwater management because
[5:50:25] it -- it comes down,
[5:50:28] it is something that we want
[5:50:31] to manage because it is a slow, and
[5:50:32] the dirt is
[5:50:34] there, so we
[5:50:37] want to manage. But after
[5:50:40] that one year, that first
[5:50:43] flash, it conveys because the storm
[5:50:44] drain doesn't manage. It just goes. But
[5:50:46] the reason it doesn't
[5:50:49] need to be managed because the water has
[5:50:52] already been taken away for you, or
[5:50:53] to
[5:50:54] avoid what you're talking about. But
[5:50:55] the other one is
[5:50:58] so fast that it doesn't have
[5:51:01] time to take it. So the storm drain
[5:51:03] doesn't do any kind of management
[5:51:04] or cleaning
[5:51:06] of the pollutant. It just takes you
[5:51:07] to the pipes and
[5:51:10] the pipes will go right through the
[5:51:11] drain, is
[5:51:12] that correct?
[5:51:13] >> yes, we are getting
[5:51:14] into hydrology one on
[5:51:15] one now, there are no pdus available
[5:51:16] for
[5:51:19] this one, by the way. But yeah,
[5:51:21] that's correct. A couple of reasons
[5:51:22] why we treat the
[5:51:24] one-year storm, the most frequent
[5:51:25] storm. It has more impact on
[5:51:27] erosion in the stream systems. It
[5:51:28] also, the
[5:51:31] first bit of rain that falls washes
[5:51:32] off
[5:51:33] a lot of the pollutants. That's what
[5:51:34] she means
[5:51:36] by first flush. We used to look at
[5:51:37] that first half inch
[5:51:40] as being the water quality. We don't
[5:51:41] do
[5:51:42] that currently, but it is still the
[5:51:43] same. The number
[5:51:45] is different, but the same philosophy. First
[5:51:46] dirty part, we want
[5:51:49] to take it and actually get it out of
[5:51:50] the main flow and
[5:51:52] let the rest of it go on. We want
[5:51:53] to
[5:51:57] segregate it in our capture practices,
[5:51:59] get that dirty stuff here, lock
[5:52:02] it up, let the rest of it
[5:52:04] go straight on through for conveyance
[5:52:05] only. If that
[5:52:08] larger flow comes into the dirty
[5:52:11] flow, then it gets mixed and it
[5:52:14] will have to be cleaned
[5:52:15] again. Our efficiency starts to plummet, so
[5:52:17] the most efficient way to
[5:52:20] do it, segregate the dirty
[5:52:21] flow somewhere, treat it separately. I
[5:52:22] was just about to talk about some
[5:52:23] of this,
[5:52:25] and send the rest of it where it needs
[5:52:26] to
[5:52:29] go because
[5:52:32] it is
[5:52:34] less treatable, let's just say. All
[5:52:37] right, dep. Important to note, when
[5:52:41] we put the
[5:52:42] stormwater management practices in
[5:52:44] place, state model and chapter 19
[5:52:47] requires we
[5:52:48] have an enforceable maintenance agreement
[5:52:49] associated with those. You can't just
[5:52:50] put
[5:52:53] something in and expect it
[5:52:55] to take care of itself forever. Somebody
[5:52:56] has to
[5:52:59] inspect it and maintain it. The
[5:53:02] montgomery county department of
[5:53:03] environmental protection is the handoff. Once
[5:53:04] we close the permit, they pick up
[5:53:05] the responsibility
[5:53:08] for inspection. In
[5:53:09] some cases, maintenance of stormwater management
[5:53:11] practices. So they will go out
[5:53:13] every three years at least, and inspect
[5:53:14] all the
[5:53:15] practices, making sure people are maintaining them properly.
[5:53:20] the next slide. I think this is the last slide that I got.
[5:53:26] that dirty flow and passing
[5:53:29] the rest
[5:53:30] of it right on through. This is between
[5:53:32] how
[5:53:35] sam's pipes and my pipes
[5:53:37] work. The roadwater here is a public grate,
[5:53:38] but
[5:53:40] the first part of it will drain directly
[5:53:41] into
[5:53:42] that vegetative area, which is what we
[5:53:44] call it a
[5:53:47] bio swell or a retention
[5:53:48] practice. Once that gets that first
[5:53:50] flush of water in
[5:53:53] there and it starts to pond up, it
[5:53:56] goes into an overflow pipe that will
[5:53:57] go directly through and the rest of it
[5:53:59] will have to sit there and soak if,
[5:54:02] and that's what
[5:54:03] we talked about segregating the initial
[5:54:05] flush into those practices,
[5:54:06] right off of that pavement. We would
[5:54:08] try to do
[5:54:10] this wherever we can. We try to fit
[5:54:11] the stormwater management in,
[5:54:12] wherever it could be fit in. This
[5:54:14] is one of the ways
[5:54:16] that we do it. I believe this actual
[5:54:17] structure was built by
[5:54:19] dep as one of their l.e.d. Projects
[5:54:20] because they do a lot
[5:54:23] of those things on the side as
[5:54:25] well for other purposes through practices. But
[5:54:26] that's what this was about. That's
[5:54:29] what it slide was intended to indicate
[5:54:30] exactly that. So thanks for being
[5:54:32] ahead of the game there.
[5:54:38] >> patience. >> unless you guys have additional questions?
[5:54:46] >> great, thank you. One quick question. I've
[5:54:47] heard
[5:54:53] of the concept called combine sewers,
[5:54:56] you know. I grew up in chicago.
[5:54:57] >>
[5:54:58] parts of
[5:54:59] dc still have
[5:55:02] a combined system, yeah.
[5:55:03] >> so
[5:55:05] who is responsible? So that is
[5:55:08] not --in maryland, that's not
[5:55:10] a thing?
[5:55:11] >> it is the sanitary sewer district
[5:55:12] that does
[5:55:14] the combined sewer systems. They do
[5:55:17] take influent water in those combined
[5:55:18] systems and
[5:55:19] take that into the treatment as well.
[5:55:20] >>
[5:55:21] okay.
[5:55:22] >> we don't have
[5:55:23] that here. And I think dc is trying
[5:55:24] to phase it out. Some
[5:55:25] places still have a combined system.
[5:55:26] >>
[5:55:27] montgomery county
[5:55:29] does not?
[5:55:30] >> no, we do not.
[5:55:32] any of the rain that flows
[5:55:35] off of your property will go into
[5:55:36] the storm
[5:55:38] drain?
[5:55:39] >> atmospheric runoff
[5:55:40] is what we deal with. Wssc does deal,
[5:55:41] in
[5:55:43] some way with the atmospheric runoff
[5:55:44] because there are reservoirs
[5:55:46] that they use to provide drinking
[5:55:47] water.
[5:55:48] >> right. >> but
[5:55:49] once it's in their system, they keep
[5:55:50] track of how much
[5:55:53] is going out.
[5:55:54] >> right. >>
[5:55:56] into the
[5:55:58] portable system. People's sinks and
[5:55:59] showers and the
[5:56:02] water hoses in their front yard. What's
[5:56:05] coming back into those systems, they
[5:56:06] keep
[5:56:07] track of that budget to make sure
[5:56:08] they don't have a lot of influence
[5:56:11] flow coming in like
[5:56:14] you would have in the mixed system. That'll reduce their
[5:56:15] efficiency of the
[5:56:16] treatment and run up their cost tremendously.
[5:56:17] >> my last question.
[5:56:23] so we
[5:56:25] have said from time to time that the
[5:56:26] city has a house
[5:56:29] that was built
[5:56:32] 15, 20 years ago. And the
[5:56:35] runoff, they
[5:56:38] had no stormwater management system, right? Just
[5:56:41] whatever the rain soaked up?
[5:56:42] >>
[5:56:44] yeah.
[5:56:45] >> now a
[5:56:47] house that has built today on the
[5:56:48] same,
[5:56:50] scraped in the same lot and the
[5:56:53] stormwater management system. So
[5:56:56] you
[5:56:58] are capturing the one year? I mean,
[5:56:59] you
[5:57:02] are ending up
[5:57:05] with less runoff
[5:57:08] than the home had before. Is that
[5:57:10] typically right or not right? I know
[5:57:12] we're treating it, but it's
[5:57:14] only the one year rainfall?
[5:57:15] >> yeah,
[5:57:16] you have to remember what rainfall
[5:57:18] event you're working with and
[5:57:21] what lot. I think we're getting
[5:57:23] to a lot of runoff questions. What
[5:57:24] surface
[5:57:27] runoffs from lot to lot requires in
[5:57:30] terms of the rainfall
[5:57:31] event to create that surface flow. By
[5:57:32] the time we get past the one year
[5:57:33] event
[5:57:36] to cause some
[5:57:37] of those larger surface runoff concerns,
[5:57:40] we are beyond the captured limit of
[5:57:42] the one
[5:57:43] year storm any way. So also, please
[5:57:45] bear in mind, when we're talking
[5:57:46] about working within the one year
[5:57:48] storm system, we
[5:57:51] are not capturing 2.6 inches
[5:57:54] of
[5:57:55] runoff in our structures. There's
[5:57:57] a calculation that compares that
[5:58:00] developed runoff to a predeveloped
[5:58:02] runoff condition, where there is also runoff. The
[5:58:06] difference that delta is what we
[5:58:07] are actually working with treatment
[5:58:09] for.
[5:58:10] >> right. >> so it might
[5:58:11] be close to a 2.6 inch, if you are
[5:58:14] paving the whole thing with concrete. That's
[5:58:15] a big
[5:58:18] delta. We are going to get close
[5:58:19] to treating that 2.6. We call them
[5:58:21] pes. Some of those
[5:58:24] get up to 2.6. It may be down as
[5:58:27] low as a pe of one inch that
[5:58:29] the required treatment is providing
[5:58:30] control for. Something that's not a very dense development.
[5:58:33] it is
[5:58:36] not much of an
[5:58:37] impact. So it varies. Sometimes it's
[5:58:39] 2.6. But often it's not.
[5:58:40] >> okay. >>
[5:58:41] and those cases where we are tearing
[5:58:42] down the house, putting in a new
[5:58:43] one that didn't have stormwater before,
[5:58:45] and we're going to have stormwater
[5:58:48] now. We would try to get every bit
[5:58:49] of that compliance standard provided
[5:58:51] on that lot. But in those
[5:58:53] cases where it is physically not possible
[5:58:54] to
[5:58:56] do it, we may issue a stormwater waiver
[5:58:58] or partial waiver.
[5:58:59] >> right. >> but
[5:59:00] 9/11 had that
[5:59:03] partial waiver condition,
[5:59:06] many times that finished modern lot
[5:59:08] has more treatment in the one year storm
[5:59:09] than
[5:59:10] what was there before, previously.
[5:59:11] >> right.
[5:59:12] okay.
[5:59:13] >>
[5:59:15] and my last question may be you
[5:59:16] or the other group. They're all in
[5:59:18] the
[5:59:21] same page on my
[5:59:24] board members. The slight
[5:59:26] plan and the record plat. I mean,
[5:59:28] the record plat is more. The boundaries
[5:59:30] of the site, you know,
[5:59:33] the boundaries of the building,
[5:59:36] all the easements, is that the record
[5:59:39] plat verses the certified site
[5:59:42] plan might
[5:59:45] show all the other things, separate documents,
[5:59:48] so everything is on the
[5:59:51] same page?
[5:59:52] >> yes. >> the
[5:59:54] record plat is that shows the
[5:59:57] lot lines, shows
[6:00:00] the easements, the
[6:00:03] legal restrictions and the conditions that
[6:00:06] are imposed
[6:00:09] by the
[6:00:11] site plan process. They show the buildings,
[6:00:12] the implication of the
[6:00:15] curve and the pavement and the driveway. All that stuff.
[6:00:21] those are the site plans.
[6:00:24] so you can think of plat as the legal plan of the property.
[6:00:30] what
[6:00:33] the legal restrictions are on the property. The
[6:00:35] lot line, easements, such.
[6:00:36] >> and
[6:00:37] just being clear. Okay, thank you.
[6:00:38] okay.
[6:00:39] those are my questions. This is great.
[6:00:42] to get the
[6:00:45] one on one. You guys are at the
[6:00:47] 4-point level. Thank you so much. Just
[6:00:48] appreciating, knowing the process
[6:00:51] and what you do, and how we all
[6:00:52] work together. Any other questions
[6:00:53] or comments from the board members?
[6:00:54] >>
[6:00:56] I could ask probably a thousand more questions.
[6:00:57] >> I
[6:00:58] already told them to tell me to shut
[6:01:00] up if I talk too much, so
[6:01:02] she shouldn't have talked to you,
[6:01:03] I guess.
[6:01:04] >> all right, but I really appreciate it.
[6:01:09] you did an outstanding job, and I especially
[6:01:12] like this photograph because it shows
[6:01:15] how vegetation plays a part in control
[6:01:16] and stormwater management. Thanks.
[6:01:17] >>
[6:01:18] and mr. Chair, I think we do have
[6:01:19] a few more
[6:01:21] slides on well and septic just to
[6:01:22] end
[6:01:23] it.
[6:01:24] >> great. >> yep, yep, no, good. We're
[6:01:25] here.
[6:01:26] >>
[6:01:27] and then I think that's it.
[6:01:54] >> okay. There we go. So I guess I
[6:01:55] was probably
[6:01:57] suppose to it up there with those
[6:01:58] guys. But I just wanted
[6:01:59] to blend in with the audience, I guess.
[6:02:03] my name
[6:02:06] is jason flemming. I'm in
[6:02:09] the dps oil and
[6:02:12] septic section. I will
[6:02:15] be here today to discuss the main
[6:02:16] rules and responsibilities of our group.
[6:02:21] so
[6:02:23] we have a pretty small group when
[6:02:25] it comes to the
[6:02:27] size of the different sections. We
[6:02:28] have
[6:02:30] one supervisor, and we have three
[6:02:34] plan reviewers and two field
[6:02:36] inspectors. We also have to maintain
[6:02:39] a certification as an environmental
[6:02:43] health specialist through
[6:02:46] the state's department of health. So
[6:02:49] getting to the slides.
[6:02:56] where our group comes in is anywhere
[6:02:58] in the county
[6:03:01] that does not have
[6:03:03] access to the wssc system, public
[6:03:04] water and public sewer,
[6:03:07] that's where we come in.
[6:03:10] for a
[6:03:12] property, they need to have their
[6:03:13] water supply on the lot.
[6:03:21] that is on-
[6:03:23] site waste water treatment system
[6:03:24] or commonly
[6:03:27] called a
[6:03:30] septic system. So the
[6:03:33] state regulations that
[6:03:35] are delegated to us through the maryland
[6:03:36] department of environment that
[6:03:39] we
[6:03:42] oversee are maryland
[6:03:45] regulation 260402 for the
[6:03:48] sewage disposal. We also
[6:03:51] are in charge ofof 26403, the
[6:03:54] state subdivision
[6:03:55] regulations and then well construction
[6:03:57] is through
[6:04:00] 260404.
[6:04:05] montgomery county has their own well
[6:04:06] and septic
[6:04:09] regulations. That is in
[6:04:12] 27a.
[6:04:15] the thing with our county
[6:04:17] regulations are that we can be more
[6:04:18] strict than the
[6:04:21] state regs, but we cannot
[6:04:24] be less strict.
[6:04:27] in the
[6:04:29] aspects of our regulations where we
[6:04:30] hold a little
[6:04:31] bit higher requirements versus the state.
[6:04:39] a well and
[6:04:42] septic review is usually triggered,
[6:04:45] like I said, when there is a property
[6:04:46] that
[6:04:48] does not haves it access to the
[6:04:51] water
[6:04:54] supply
[6:04:57] or the viewer system. That
[6:05:00] is designated as a
[6:05:03] w6 or s6
[6:05:06] category.
[6:05:12] just on
[6:05:15] the approval process, this is
[6:05:18] where I think a
[6:05:21] lot of people here, the percolation
[6:05:23] test, that would be us. It has to
[6:05:24] do with
[6:05:26] the septic system. I had calls where
[6:05:27] people want to
[6:05:30] know if they need to perc for their
[6:05:33] well. Do not.
[6:05:35] the water is there underneath the
[6:05:36] ground. You just have
[6:05:38] to drill a hole down deep enough to
[6:05:39] get to
[6:05:42] it. The percolation
[6:05:45] test is
[6:05:48] basically the
[6:05:50] soil component of a septic system.
[6:05:51] not all
[6:05:54] soils are
[6:05:57] the same.
[6:06:01] there
[6:06:04] has to be an area that the soils
[6:06:05] demonstrate that essentially they
[6:06:10] can allow the waste water
[6:06:12] to filter down through the soil. That
[6:06:16] is essentially what we are
[6:06:17] using to protect the groundwaters of the state.
[6:06:22] there are
[6:06:23] requirements associated with that.
[6:06:25] the biggest
[6:06:28] one is in the
[6:06:31] state regs there is a
[6:06:33] four-foot treatment zone. So, that
[6:06:34] is a
[6:06:37] four-foot buffer between the
[6:06:40] groundwater andand
[6:06:43] bottom of t
[6:06:46] he septic
[6:06:49] trenches. The way that
[6:06:52] we in montgomery county in
[6:06:55] our group determine or make sure that we are
[6:06:57] meeting that separation is that we
[6:07:01] do tests. The first test that we
[6:07:04] do is called a
[6:07:07] water table test.
[6:07:16] it is lowest
[6:07:18] towards the end of the summer when
[6:07:19] you
[6:07:21] had the vegetation pull and grow and
[6:07:24] the evaporation. The groundwater recharges
[6:07:28] through the winter.
[6:07:31] so, late
[6:07:32] winter, early spring is when we go
[6:07:34] out and do the water
[6:07:36] table tests. They are dug down to
[6:07:37] at
[6:07:40] least 15 feet, and then
[6:07:42] sometimes you will not hit the groundwater
[6:07:43] table.
[6:07:46] other times you
[6:07:49] will. And then we would make
[6:07:51] sure the septic trenches are installed
[6:07:52] at least
[6:07:54] four feet below that grounder water
[6:07:55] table,
[6:07:57] and it is time dependant. After that
[6:07:58] we do
[6:08:00] the percolation test. That can be
[6:08:01] done any time
[6:08:04] of the year.
[6:08:07] again, that
[6:08:10] is basically
[6:08:13] to determine if
[6:08:16] the soils in the
[6:08:19] areas chosen
[6:08:22] would support
[6:08:24] a septic system. The different types
[6:08:25] of
[6:08:28] the systems that we use are
[6:08:31] in-ground trench
[6:08:33] systems. But if you have limitations
[6:08:34] to
[6:08:37] the property.
[6:08:40] high groundwater table or a
[6:08:43] rocky soil.
[6:08:49] we want
[6:08:51] that soil to act as a living filter.
[6:08:52] there are
[6:08:54] above ground systems. That is where
[6:08:55] you hear
[6:08:58] about sand mounds. So, maybe a
[6:09:01] property that could not have a
[6:09:04] trench system could still --you could
[6:09:05] still
[6:09:07] build a house and/or have a commercial
[6:09:08] type
[6:09:09] of facility using the sand mound system.
[6:09:13] let me see.
[6:09:16] what have I not
[6:09:19] covered?
[6:09:21] and then down at the bottom of the
[6:09:22] slide
[6:09:24] it talks about the requirements of the perc test.
[6:09:30] the environmental health specialist will
[6:09:31] go out and you
[6:09:34] can actually see a
[6:09:37] perc test in the
[6:09:40] picture.
[6:09:55] if it is determined
[6:09:58] that it is a good spot
[6:10:01] they will run the
[6:10:04] actual percolation test.
[6:10:07] to be able to create
[6:10:09] a lot on a property that does not
[6:10:10] have
[6:10:13] access to public sewer, you need
[6:10:16] your own way of
[6:10:19] getting
[6:10:22] drinking water.
[6:10:24] when we are reviewing the sites and
[6:10:25] the lots
[6:10:27] it is required there be at least three
[6:10:28] well
[6:10:31] sites on the
[6:10:34] property
[6:10:37] they
[6:10:39] will have the one, and sometimes if
[6:10:40] that location does
[6:10:43] not work you have
[6:10:46] two alternates that
[6:10:49] are already fitting in
[6:10:52] the whole
[6:10:55] puzzle piece. That
[6:10:58] is one of the requirements.
[6:11:00] those wells are typically at least 15
[6:11:01] feet apart.
[6:11:04] a will needs to be 100 feet away from
[6:11:07] a septic system. 100 feet from any
[6:11:09] stormwater management feature and
[6:11:10] 30
[6:11:12] feet from building foundation, and
[6:11:13] it has to
[6:11:16] be upgrade of the septic system.
[6:11:19] the septic
[6:11:25] system requirements
[6:11:28] you need to use conventional technology.
[6:11:30] the trenches of a sand mound. We have
[6:11:31] the ability
[6:11:34] to use what we call alternative
[6:11:37] or innovative systems. Those are
[6:11:40] usually reserved for a house
[6:11:43] that exists on a property
[6:11:46] and the existing systems failed.
[6:11:49] we would issue a
[6:11:52] repair
[6:11:55] per mit.
[6:11:58] the septic area that I
[6:12:01] was referencing,
[6:12:04] the minimum size of it needs to be
[6:12:06] 10,000 square feet. A little under
[6:12:07] a quarter of
[6:12:09] the acre of the property needs to
[6:12:10] be set aside
[6:12:13] and reserved for the disposal of the
[6:12:16] wastewater in
[6:12:19] the septic area.
[6:12:22] that must be large enough for
[6:12:25] the initial system and three
[6:12:28] future replacements.
[6:12:31] a lot of the time people are like
[6:12:32] my
[6:12:34] whole backyard is the
[6:12:37] septic area.
[6:12:46] they don't last forever. Maybe that
[6:12:47] is not for the
[6:12:49] time that you or your family lived
[6:12:50] there but the
[6:12:52] house, the life of
[6:12:55] the house.
[6:12:58] >> may I ask a
[6:13:02] question? When was
[6:13:03] the requirementsrequirements for backup
[6:13:05] systems and the
[6:13:07] future systems implemented? We had
[6:13:08] situations
[6:13:09] where septics failed and they have
[6:13:11] come to ask us
[6:13:12] for access to sewer and water to extend to the public sewer
[6:13:14] and water.
[6:13:17] I know that we do
[6:13:18] have situations in which that was
[6:13:20] not in place at the time of
[6:13:21] the construction of the building of
[6:13:23] the system. When was it in place
[6:13:24] and how do we handle situations where
[6:13:26] we have, you
[6:13:28] know, septic systems past their usable
[6:13:29] life on
[6:13:32] a lot that does not have the
[6:13:34] capacity or hasn't been planned for
[6:13:35] that capacity?
[6:13:38] >> I believe that
[6:13:40] the requirement for the ability to
[6:13:41] create a
[6:13:44] lot and to have backup area
[6:13:47] is in the state
[6:13:50] subdivision regulations around
[6:13:53] 1972.
[6:13:56] >> we do have
[6:13:57] lots that are older than that, and
[6:13:59] a lot of the time they do
[6:14:02] not have the
[6:14:05] septic reserve area.
[6:14:11] that is when it can
[6:14:14] be difficult to find
[6:14:17] a
[6:14:20] replacement area.
[6:14:23] worst case
[6:14:26] you would put a property on
[6:14:29] a holding tank.
[6:14:32] seven-day capacity, and
[6:14:34] you think you are pumping this every
[6:14:35] couple of weeks
[6:14:38] and it gets
[6:14:41] really expensive.
[6:14:47] what does it mean that a septic
[6:14:49] field fails? Does that mean it does
[6:14:53] not percolate anymore?
[6:14:56] why can't they remove
[6:14:59] the dirt?
[6:15:05] it is not going to
[6:15:07] be in existence anymore before the
[6:15:11] septic failed.
[6:15:20] my understand ing is
[6:15:23] that it has to be undisturbed soil.
[6:15:26] why can't it be disturbed
[6:15:29] soil as long as you remove
[6:15:31] it, bring clean soil and make sure
[6:15:32] it is not compacted and
[6:15:35] use it. Why can't they do that?
[6:15:38] >> essentially it is because of what or
[6:15:39] how
[6:15:41] soils are created. They are
[6:15:44] created over time.
[6:15:47] they develop what is called
[6:15:50] a structure.
[6:15:52] the different structure of the soil.
[6:15:53] that
[6:15:56] is what we are relying on
[6:15:59] for the wastewater to
[6:16:02] filter through. So fill does not have
[6:16:05] structure. If you would put a
[6:16:08] septic system in fill
[6:16:11] it would probably
[6:16:14] just
[6:16:17] come to the surface.
[6:16:20] what does it mean when a septic
[6:16:23] system fails?
[6:16:26] you have
[6:16:29] bacteria in the
[6:16:31] soil that are breaking down the waste
[6:16:32] and
[6:16:35] they generate waste.
[6:16:38] the space in between the
[6:16:41] soil particles and the structure
[6:16:44] clogs up.
[6:16:47] the water can't
[6:16:50] filter down through
[6:16:53] that the system fails
[6:16:56] when the water backs
[6:16:59] up into your house or
[6:17:02] the surface. This block
[6:17:05] of the septic area is basically
[6:17:08] all clogged
[6:17:11] up.
[6:17:14] >> dan:
[6:17:17] I am --
[6:17:18] >> we
[6:17:19] have not come up with a structured
[6:17:20] field to take care of
[6:17:23] the issue for a lot of
[6:17:26] houses.
[6:17:29] sometimes they have to spend $150,000
[6:17:32] or more to get connected to public.
[6:17:33] I don't know.
[6:17:35] to me it looks like that it may
[6:17:38] be cheaper to get some kind of a structured
[6:17:41] soil and replace it with.
[6:17:44] I can't see why nobody has thought
[6:17:45] about to do it.
[6:17:47] that can be a good business. Maybe
[6:17:48] you can go
[6:17:50] in that business.
[6:17:51] >> I suppose it
[6:17:52] would
[6:17:53] be, but you have to depend
[6:17:56] on mother nature through freeze and
[6:17:59] thaw
[6:18:02] cycles.
[6:18:05] animals and
[6:18:07] insects going through and creating
[6:18:08] a
[6:18:10] soil structure. If someone would come
[6:18:11] up with a way to
[6:18:14] create a structured soil we
[6:18:17] could do that.
[6:18:18] >>
[6:18:19] trenches, I thought that maybe it was
[6:18:20] the old way.
[6:18:23] it was dug
[6:18:25] down. Now you said there are trenches.
[6:18:26] if they are
[6:18:29] standard trenches, are they a
[6:18:31] couple feet wide by so many feet deep.
[6:18:32] if they are
[6:18:35] in trenches now and if it can
[6:18:38] be linear.
[6:18:44] I don't know, what is
[6:18:47] the dimension of a typical septic
[6:18:51] system for
[6:18:54] a three
[6:18:57] bedroom? We can talk
[6:19:00] offline. I was just seeing
[6:19:03] if theythey are not horizontal
[6:19:06] anymore they are in trenches.
[6:19:09] >> they are linear
[6:19:12] trenches.
[6:19:15] linear feet and they have
[6:19:17] to be so many feet apart?
[6:19:18] >> right.
[6:19:21] >> yes.
[6:19:24] I am trying to get an example
[6:19:27] of a typical septic system in
[6:19:30] trenches.
[6:19:33] >>
[6:19:35] the typical linear length. The trenches
[6:19:36] are
[6:19:39] two feet wide.
[6:19:45] I would say
[6:19:48] a couple hundred
[6:19:51] linear feet.
[6:20:00] 200
[6:20:03] to 300.
[6:20:06] >> minimum
[6:20:09] 10,000 square feet times three.
[6:20:11] 30,000 should be set aside for a septic?
[6:20:12] had that
[6:20:15] is the question.
[6:20:18] for an
[6:20:21] initial system.
[6:20:24] that includes the future replacement
[6:20:27] systems?
[6:20:28] >> yes. >>
[6:20:30] okay. Okay.
[6:20:33] >> within
[6:20:36] that, you need
[6:20:39] to fit
[6:20:42] the
[6:20:45] initial ones. And that the three
[6:20:48] backups will fit.
[6:20:51] it is larger than
[6:20:53] 10,000. You will need more linear
[6:20:54] feet.
[6:20:55] >> got it.
[6:20:56] >> all of that together may make it
[6:20:57] so
[6:21:00] that 10,000 is too small.
[6:21:01] >> okay.
[6:21:02] thank you.
[6:21:03] >> let's see. I think that
[6:21:06] I have one
[6:21:09] more slide.
[6:21:12] just
[6:21:15] really quickly to cover the record
[6:21:18] plat review process that
[6:21:21] we cover when
[6:21:23] a plat comes in there are requirements
[6:21:24] that we look for.
[6:21:26] the first one being that they have
[6:21:27] a final well
[6:21:30] and
[6:21:33] septic plan. It
[6:21:35] basically starts as a test plan. They
[6:21:36] are going
[6:21:39] to layout the
[6:21:41] property. This is where I am going to
[6:21:42] put my
[6:21:45] wells and
[6:21:48] septic system. Test data comes in
[6:21:51] and review it. It is
[6:21:52] updated. The plan is presented and then
[6:21:54] it is approved.
[6:22:00] on the record plat the boundary of
[6:22:02] the septic area must be shown and
[6:22:03] a
[6:22:06] 20-foot septic building
[6:22:09] restriction line. That is to
[6:22:11] protect the septicseptic from construction
[6:22:15] of structures.
[6:22:19] the alternate wells that I discussed earlier.
[6:22:27] the one most people
[6:22:30] ask
[6:22:33] about are how many bedroom house
[6:22:36] can I build.
[6:22:45] well, that is pretty
[6:22:47] much everything if anyone has other
[6:22:48] questions let me know.
[6:22:51] >> this is great.
[6:22:54] thank you.
[6:22:57] every couple of months we get the
[6:23:00] well and the septic approvals.
[6:23:03] we are more informed now. Let us at them.
[6:23:06] thank you so
[6:23:08] much. This has been wonderful. Any
[6:23:09] other questions or comments
[6:23:12] from the board? Seeing none and thank
[6:23:13] you.
[6:23:14] this ends our planning board meeting
[6:23:15] for today.
[6:23:16] thank you. We will see you next thursday.