[0:02] All right, good afternoon, everyone. We are convening as the planning housing and economic development committee. Can I please have a roll call?

[0:13] Vice chair, Ouyana.

[0:15] Here, council member Adam Stafford, council member Oleson.

[0:20] Three members present of the roll call.

[0:22] Thank you. We have a few pieces of legislation today. There'll be two that we're going to hold to the next meeting.

[0:27] I'll read them to indicate them since their sponsors are not here.

[0:31] And then the others we will be discussing today.

[0:34] The first one is CB65, 206, and that concerns Senior Co-Housing Expansion Program.

[0:40] We'll be honing that to the next committee meeting to allow the sponsor to be able to speak on it.

[0:51] All

[1:11] right, can I have a motion to hold to the next meeting?

[1:15] Probably move myself.

[1:16] I'm sorry, second move by the Vice Chair Olsen.

[1:20] Secondly, by myself, kind of a roll call.

[1:31] Thank you, I'm going to move on around in the agenda, so I know we see CB so far as next, but it will be moving to the last item on our agenda.

[1:43] Next we have CB64 and Accusing Weason Conservation Landscaping for the purpose of admitting the housing code of pressure is kind of regarding the definition of weason conservation landscape.

[1:52] meeting the property standards, maintenance co-provision, regarding the definition of

[1:56] weeds and conservation landscaping, and to amend the anti-liter and weed ordinance

[2:01] regarding the definition of weeds, conservation landscaping, providing for certain abandoned

[2:05] vehicles and certain definitions, and to be relating our excuse me regarding weeds and

[2:09] conservation landscaping, sponsored by Councilor Jenoga, I'll pass it to the staff for another

[2:15] view. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the PHAGD Committee. As Madam Chair

[2:21] mentioned this bill, a men's exterior properties, property standards, anti-liter and weed ordinance

[2:27] regulations of the housing code to define conservation landscaping and update the definition

[2:32] for weeds.

[2:34] The bill also updates a language on vacant vehicles to include watercraft and semi-trailers.

[2:40] The bill in the agenda summary on pages 77 through 86, there are amendments to this bill.

[2:46] there's an amendment sheet that Ms. Kathy Cannon and I transmitted it to you this morning.

[2:53] There were approximately 13 letters submitted from the public in support of this bill.

[3:00] If I may, I can turn to Ms. Cannon to go over some of those amendments.

[3:04] She and I can turn back with both of those amendments as well.

[3:09] Thank you, Madam Chair.

[3:10] Thank you, Madam Chair.

[3:11] Thank you, Ms. High Tower.

[3:12] There are four amendments.

[3:16] Amendment number one is technical.

[3:20] Amendment number two, three and four are exactly the same.

[3:27] They're identical.

[3:28] They amend different places in the code.

[3:31] They amend the housing code, which is amendment number two.

[3:35] Number three, amend the property standards and maintenance code.

[3:39] Number four, immense anti-liter and weed ordinance, and they basically cover four areas.

[3:47] Any voluntary identification, voluntary registration, voluntary certification, and voluntary signage, and those are the amendments.

[4:06] And did you mention that these amendments came from Councilmember Geneva?

[4:10] Yes, Madam Chair.

[4:12] They are approved by Council Member Dink.

[4:15] Any comments from the administration?

[4:21] Yes, I'd like to make comments.

[4:25] I'm going to go for the record.

[4:28] Mary, a French Georgia's County Department of the Environment.

[4:35] Good morning, County Council.

[4:37] Thank you for the opportunity to present the testimony today.

[4:40] My name is Mary A, then I am the Deputy Associate Director and the Flood Management

[4:45] and Environmental Resiliency Division.

[4:48] I'm here today on behalf of the Department

[4:50] and our express, our strong support for Council Bill CB64-2026.

[4:57] This legislation represents it by...

[5:00] Federal and progressive update to the housing code of Prince George's county for years. Traditional property codes have penalized homeowners for maintaining taller, environmentally, beneficial plants under generic weed ordinances.

[5:14] CB6426 remedies this legally distinguishing unmanaged nuisance's growth from intentional and sustainable conservation landscaping practices. This shift aligns perfectly with our county's long-term, environmental sustainability,

[5:28] and Watershed Health and Greenish infrastructure initiatives.

[5:33] From an operational and enforcement perspective, our department anticipates that the implementation

[5:37] of a spill or yield substantial public and environmental benefits.

[5:42] For instance, clear and modern standards by explicitly defining and protecting conservation

[5:47] landscape in this act provides our code enforcement officers with clear guidelines to

[5:52] differentiate between neglected property and violations in eco-friendly rain gardens and

[5:57] in need or habitats and native plant metos.

[6:01] Then there's environmental and climate resilience, encouraging native plant, native plant cultivation

[6:07] reduces storm water runoff, decreases pesticides and reliance and supports local biodiversity.

[6:15] Then there's the reduction in enforcement and ambiguity.

[6:18] Transitioning from restrictive weed policies to a formalized conservation structure

[6:23] empowers residents to confidently transition away from high maintenance turf grass without

[6:29] the fear of unjust code citations or fines.

[6:34] Our department has worked closely with community advocates and council staff to ensure

[6:38] definitions are practical and enforceable.

[6:42] We stand fully prepared to coordinate and educate educational outreach to help residents safely

[6:47] design and maintain these compliant conservation landscapes while ensuring neighborhoods,

[6:53] safety and aesthetic standards are met. For these reasons, the Department respectfully requests

[6:58] a favorable report on CB6426. I'm available to answer any operational, logistical, or technical

[7:06] questions you may have regarding deployment strategy. And thank you very much for your partnership

[7:11] and consideration. Thank you. Any other comments? Yes. Yes. Good morning.

[7:18] I'll lower in Paris, Chief of Staff at the Department of Permitting Inspections and Enforcement,

[7:22] and also I have with me.

[7:26] Good morning, Crystal Tives, Assistant Associates for

[7:29] Owage, SD by. One of the things that we would like to bring to the

[7:33] community's attention, and thank you for the opportunity to be heard, is that enforcement

[7:37] of this bill. Currently, it's under the section with respect to D-pop,

[7:44] with respect to Deep High. And so Deep High would no longer be enforcing it. Additionally,

[7:49] I have associate director Tibs with me here with respect to enforcement from the

[7:54] Office of Homeland Security, with which we're prepared to explain the qualifications that

[8:01] are needed to enforce this bill. And that they're not within OHS. And so our recommendation

[8:06] is going to be that the enforcing agency should not be Deep High and should not be

[8:11] Office of Pomegranate Security based on the current requirements in order to enforce this bill and I'll turn it over to Ms.

[8:18] Good morning and thank you again for the opportunity to speak. One of the challenges as Ms. Paris would say is that our

[8:27] inspectors are not subject matter experts as it relates to the environment and preservation and conservation landscape areas.

[8:34] We primarily enforce property maintenance, which includes, of course, high grass and weeds,

[8:39] jumped in a band in vehicles and things of that nature.

[8:43] My understanding is that DOE already has inspectors that are able to enforce the code

[8:49] with respect to the additions made to the code.

[8:53] They are trained in environmental and preservation types of cases.

[8:59] And also, too, I believe that there's funding that they get for those programs.

[9:03] So the concern would be our inspectors being able to testify as to, for example, what a pollinator is, or any other type of, I guess, type of, I don't want to say, we've a type of plant.

[9:18] They're not specialized in those types of testimony. We'd have to raise our hand, of course, in a education process.

[9:25] is so in terms of the actual enforcement of it

[9:28] and identifying of it, it would be a challenge for us

[9:32] to be able to do that.

[9:34] So that is one of the concerns about the enforcement hour.

[9:37] I have a question.

[9:41] So would you say, because I guess right now,

[9:44] like if someone went and had weeds in their grass,

[9:48] they before it was deep, I would give them a citation,

[9:51] but now it would be all that security. So you say in that whole section should go out and go

[10:00] So, DOE, only because I'm saying, would you all no longer give someone a citation for weed? If we passed this because they wouldn't be able to deal any aid. Right. So, if they're giving a citation for it, but then under the law, they shouldn't be getting a citation for it. I'm not sure who we would. How will we rectify that? So, if it would have to be like the entire thing would not be governed by you. Is that what you guys mean?

[10:26] Well, that's what I would recommend in terms of the Department of Environment.

[10:30] They are specialists in land conservation and preservation.

[10:35] So I think as a specialty within the agency, I think the inspectors that they currently

[10:39] have could possibly be cross-trained to be able to go on and identify those types of cases.

[10:46] It doesn't stop off as a homeland security or co-compliance from still going out and conducting

[10:52] property maintenance inspections, but I think when there is cases as it relates to specialized

[10:59] types of plant or vegetation, I think that should be left to the experts because the

[11:06] inspectors that we have don't have that expertise.

[11:10] And I think that that could possibly run into litigation later on down the line because they're

[11:16] not aware of what they're looking at if you will.

[11:21] Additionally, I think what, as the subtitle 13, there's a ways that it can be amended

[11:27] you can additionally add, they're going to be changes with respect to the common 13,

[11:32] where D.P. is going to be removed and also comes in securities going to be added, but you

[11:36] can also add DOE having the specific authority to enforce this particular provision within

[11:42] subtitle 13.

[11:43] That, those changes can be made with respect to the code, so therefore it's clear who has the authority

[11:48] to enforce and then the necessary enforcement action and then ultimately the challenges to those

[11:54] who would be testifying and asserting that this is in fact a violation or not.

[12:00] Do you?

[12:03] Thank you. Yes, I'd like to respond. First off in the Department of Environment,

[12:09] we do not have enforcement mission driven directives in terms of the environment. We support stewardship.

[12:15] But the other thing is, is that in terms of enforcement of environmental protections, every

[12:24] day when a development goes in, there's a planting plan, which are created, and deep

[12:31] high and international capital are responsible for the review of these plans, which does require

[12:36] expert knowledge to approve.

[12:37] So I think in terms of who's in charge of enforcement, that has always been clearly in

[12:45] deep eye.

[12:47] And so I think it's a matter of, they can get bring in the particular technical knowledge

[12:52] in order to support this enforcement.

[12:55] DOE can certainly support, but again, we are not the agency of enforcement.

[13:03] So that's my response.

[13:05] Thank you.

[13:06] So I think what we should do is Angela, I'm going to give you guys a leap for the administration

[13:14] of the kind executive to work between the agencies and come back with a recommendation of where you think it should sit.

[13:20] I think the posture of this body is that we're going to pass it.

[13:24] I mean, we could just choose one, but I would like to defer to the kind of executive.

[13:30] So if you guys could commit to coming back on a week with a solution of how to divide the responsibility,

[13:36] I tend to agree with what, um,

[13:41] deep-eye and homeless security share

[13:44] of their just not by having the expertise.

[13:48] I do think that there's going to need to be a role for DOE,

[13:52] but what does that look like?

[13:55] Um, I think you guys can help us get there.

[13:57] Is that amenable?

[13:59] Yes, I've actually already spoken with miscanning

[14:01] on some places where we can insert DOE

[14:04] DOE and then we'll have the departments work out exactly how they manage that.

[14:09] So, I think we've got language pretty much figured out.

[14:11] Okay. So, have a motion to hold the next meeting.

[14:15] Some move.

[14:15] Second.

[14:16] Properly moved in second camera roll call.

[14:19] Vice chair, or the other?

[14:21] Council member, I'm Stafford.

[14:23] Aye. Council member rolls.

[14:25] Aye.

[14:25] Motion to hold 3-0.

[14:27] Thank you.

[14:29] Alrighty.

[14:31] Thank you.

[14:32] Moving on to CB-75 at concerning quiet and clean lens gaping equipment for the purpose of providing legislative findings and purpose providing definitions providing for prohibited acts and certain phase prohibition providing for certain exemptions providing a requirement for county government and Maryland National Capital Parking Planning Commission providing for enforcement and measurement providing for public education.

[15:00] And transition assistance providing for penalties and generally relating to quiet and clean landscaping equipment. This is CBC-7526, passing it to staff on overview.

[15:13] This bill prohibits the use of regulated leaf blowers that produce sound above a certain level in the county. The bill includes a phased in implementation schedule and provides exemptions.

[15:24] It also establishes a public education and transition

[15:28] assistance and sense penalties and violations.

[15:31] The bill is on page 92 through 96.

[15:34] Ms. Miller-Wise here can provide a fiscal and policy overview.

[15:38] The plan and department staff provided comments,

[15:41] which will on page 108 in their staff are here to go over them.

[15:45] The Office of Central Services submitted a presentation.

[15:50] discussing their recommendations on pages 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 12, there were also amendments

[15:58] to propose draft one of this bill that the sponsor has approved and Ms. Cannon can

[16:05] go over those.

[16:06] There were no public comments at this time, Madam Chair, I would like to ask you if you would

[16:14] to speak allow Ms. Millawaii to give a presentation or to move on to Ms. Campbell.

[16:20] Thank you.

[16:21] Can we hear the amendments?

[16:23] Come on, Scary?

[16:25] Yes, Madam Chair, there was seven amendments, and Mr. Jenogez, Ms. High-Cower, said, had actually

[16:33] produced these amendments and approved these amendments.

[16:36] Amendment number one changes the sound level standard from 70 BBAs to 75 DBAs at 50 feet.

[16:45] Amendment number two aligns the date on which the sound level standard applies to use the date of the prohibition on sale

[16:52] and moves the date of the full penalty enforcement accordingly.

[16:57] Amendment number three conforms the description of the effect of the sound level standard to the standard is amended.

[17:03] amendment number four establishes the quiet landscaping equipment transition fund provides

[17:10] for eligibility, eligible costs, award limits, priority, regulations and the annual report to

[17:18] the council and requires the county executive to propose an appropriation of $100,000 for each

[17:24] this year's 2828.

[17:39] Number four, also, those several things. It sets up the quiet, man-saving

[17:45] equipment transition fund. It provides for the purpose of the fund. It provides for the

[17:51] appropriation and the eligible applicants, eligible costs, award limits, priority, regulations,

[17:59] and availability. And the amendment number five, removes the reference to Maryland National

[18:05] Capital Park and Planning Commission, amendment number six,

[18:08] revises the date that works shall cease from July 1, 2027 to January 8, 28,

[18:16] amendment number seven, clarifies the origin of the request for the identical policy

[18:22] and compliance timeline to strike by the council in this concludes the seven amendments.

[18:33] Thank you.

[18:37] Let me go to the administration.

[18:39] Thank

[18:46] you. Department of OCS submitted comments and I believe their amendments have been included.

[18:53] I have been incorporated.

[19:01] The speakers list I have are represented from Department of Public Works and Transportation.

[19:09] So just introduce yourselves for the record and give your comments.

[19:16] Thank you.

[19:17] Good morning.

[19:20] Council members.

[19:20] My name is Tamil Perry, legislative analyst, commenting on behalf of the Department of Public Works and Transportation, regarding CB-75-26, with me on my colleagues West Thompson, Christy Cluster, and LaDonna Stewart Roberts.

[19:38] DPWNT supports the intent of this bill.

[19:41] It's focused on environmental sustainability and pursuing efficient effective solutions

[19:46] as a goal we share.

[19:48] However our review has identified significant operational fiscal procurement and implementation

[19:54] challenges that we believe won't further study before this measure is enacted as written.

[20:00] Transitioning from gas power to electric equipment is far more complex than a one-to-one equipment swap, it requires new battery infrastructure, electrical upgrades at maintenance facilities, secure charging and storage areas, workforce training, and operational testing under real working conditions, including wet leaf removal, storm debris cleanup, and roadway has a response.

[20:25] D.P.W.N.T. does not currently have funding identified in FY27 to support these changes,

[20:32] and several FY28 in FY29 contracts listations, including our already advertised sidewalk

[20:39] and bridges solicitation, will be directly affected.

[20:42] Given those concerns, D.P.W.N.T. respectfully recommends the Council amends CBO-7526 to first

[20:52] require a comprehensive study of long-term operational and fiscal impacts before mandates take effect.

[20:59] Second, extend the implementation time to allow adequate time for procurement, funding,

[21:05] infrastructure, and testing. Third, allow continued use of existing gas power equipment through

[21:12] its useful life where appropriate. Fourth, expand exemptions from storm cleanup,

[21:18] Rowway hazards and other public safety operations. Fifth, make each compliance phase

[21:25] contingent on availability of funding and infrastructure, and six Claire for a

[21:31] how, clarify how requirements apply to existing contracts and allow reasonable

[21:36] transition periods for contractors. We look forward to working with the council on a

[21:41] path that achieves this bill's environmental goals while protecting the county's

[21:45] ability to deliver essential public work services.

[21:49] My colleagues are prepared to answer any questions you may have.

[21:53] Thank you.

[21:54] Thank you.

[21:56] And when we have a copy of all those comments, correct?

[22:02] We do not have those amendments.

[22:03] I don't think we will get them to you.

[22:06] Thank you.

[22:07] I appreciate it.

[22:08] Thank you.

[22:09] Any questions from my colleague?

[22:12] Any other representative, Department of Public Works,

[22:16] choose to say she want to give comments?

[22:21] Do I have a motion for this one?

[22:24] Um, move the hold.

[22:27] Second, cover roll call.

[22:32] Nice to hear what you are.

[22:34] Council member Adam Staffer.

[22:36] Council members.

[22:37] All right.

[22:38] Motion carries three zero.

[22:40] Thank you.

[22:40] and we'll get a copy of your amendments

[22:43] and concerns to review before the next meeting.

[22:46] Perfect, thank you.

[22:49] We will go back.

[22:52] We have a reconsideration on CBC-64-2026.

[23:02] From a process standpoint, we wanna revone that.

[23:07] Anyone that voted in affirmative to hope

[23:09] could just make the motion correct.

[23:13] Do I have a motion to,

[23:16] or do I have a motion?

[23:17] Thank you, sir.

[23:18] Move.

[23:19] Hold on, hold on.

[23:20] Hold on.

[23:21] Yeah, yeah.

[23:22] So, sorry.

[23:23] We're moving to put it back on our agenda.

[23:25] No, we're just moving in a minute.

[23:26] Just I think we don't have to be moving.

[23:29] Okay.

[23:30] Motion to reconsider.

[23:31] Move to reconsider.

[23:32] Mm-hmm.

[23:33] Second.

[23:34] And can I have a roll call?

[23:41] Council member Adam Stafford.

[23:42] Council member Wilson.

[23:45] Okay, so we made a motion to reconsider CB64206 that we initially held after speaking offline

[23:52] with Council member Dinoga.

[23:54] He would like to move forward with this bill hearing the amendments request from DPI

[24:03] for now to move it to Homeland Security and then to work with the administration offline

[24:11] for any additional amendments before introduction.

[24:17] So, can I have a motion to amend it?

[24:22] Do we need to take his list of amendments as well?

[24:25] Did he have a amendment sheet for this?

[24:26] Yes, ma'am he did.

[24:28] So, can we just do a motion on amendment sheet one?

[24:33] Yes.

[24:33] Then we'll do a motion on the amendment to switch from

[24:38] on a security, and then we'll make a motion of favor more as amended.

[24:43] Move, and then let's shoot one.

[24:45] Second,

[24:48] can I have a roll call?

[24:50] Vice chair or a other?

[24:52] Council member Adam Stafford.

[24:55] Council member Holes.

[24:55] Aye.

[24:56] Motion carries 3-0.

[24:59] Aye.

[24:59] No.

[25:00] I would move that this be the depot.

[25:05] Yeah. I was in the Homeland Security, or this would be the right word. This would be

[25:12] administered by Homeland Security.

[25:16] And then to comment on that. Well, let me move that first and then discussion.

[25:21] Second. Any discussion?

[25:24] Okay.

[25:26] Yeah, at Mr. Junknown, I would like to move out.

[25:29] We can, we want to work with the administration to figure it out before introduction, which

[25:34] would be next week, I assume, so that we can work out where it should be housed.

[25:39] There seems to be some disagreement among agencies.

[25:43] But if we work with you before introduction, we can, before introduction.

[25:47] We can put it, put whichever agency you want it.

[25:51] That's all.

[25:52] Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Roll call.

[25:56] Vice Chair Royada. Council Member Adam Stafford.

[26:00] Aye. Council Member Ocean. Aye. Motion carries 3-0.

[26:03] Now, let's make a motion and move as favorable as amended.

[26:07] We'll move. Then probably move in second.

[26:09] Council Member Royada. Aye. Council Member.

[26:14] Adam Stafford. Aye. Council Member Wilson. Aye.

[26:17] Motion carries 3-0. Thank you. Now moving on to CB-2326

[26:21] and act of starting rental licenses for the purpose of providing for the display of certain rental licenses with certain information providing for certain advertising requirements for

[26:30] our certain penalties for providing for the display and posting of certain short term rental licenses with certain information and pass to staff for an overview.

[26:40] Madam chair and members of the PhD committee, this bill was held on June 4th.

[26:46] As Madam Chair mentioned, the bill requires a long-term and short-term rentals to display their licenses in a designated area,

[26:55] which must include landlord contact information, emergency maintenance details, occupancy requirements and license dates.

[27:03] rental property advertising, and it's both physical and digital must also include the rental license number and its effective in expiration dates.

[27:14] The bill also adds penalties for non-compliance.

[27:17] There's a proposed draft, too, in miscanning can go over those amendments.

[27:23] There was one public comment from Mr. Hugo Canter regarding the proposed draft, too, and he'll testify today.

[27:31] Thank you.

[27:39] I'll go to the administration.

[27:45] Thank you. The administration has submitted all of their

[27:48] comments on this and we are in support. Thank you. Speaker's list, we have Hudo from AOB.

[28:05] Can we make sure this mic is turned on?

[28:16] Good afternoon, everyone. Chair, Vice Chair,

[28:18] members of the committee and staff. For the record, can you go can't you of the representing

[28:24] the Department of Office Building Association of Metro Pals and Washington.

[28:28] We represent owners and managers of more than 23 million square feet of commercial office

[28:33] space and about 167,000 apartment units in Maryland, 80,000 roughly of those units or

[28:40] in Prince George's County.

[28:42] Now Council Bill 23 requires housing providers to display the rental license within 12 feet

[28:47] of the primary residents to each building or as close as practical.

[28:52] along with other information listed in paragraph 2 in the proposed draft 2.

[28:59] In our written comments we emphasize that the multifamily real estate industry and the community

[29:04] believes that all rental properties should follow the law and they should have up to date rental licenses.

[29:11] That is why AOB members display their rental license on site in the leasing office.

[29:16] Members provide much of the information that's required in the paragraph and either residential lease

[29:21] or a rental portal or on site at the leasing office.

[29:26] But overall, AOB members can and will comply with the requirements of the draft 2 and CB23.

[29:33] We thank the sponsor and the committee for listening to us in the industry.

[29:37] Happy to answer any questions from the committee.

[29:40] Thank you.

[29:42] We are going to need to take a short recess.

[29:45] I apologize,

[29:48] a personal tragedy has happened in one of our council members.

[29:53] So we're going to take a short recess.

[29:55] Thank you.

[34:48] Thank you. We are back from recess. We are on CB203, an act concerning rental license.

[35:00] And we heard from the administration on this. There's a draft two. Do I have a motion from our colleagues?

[35:09] So moved. I've been a properly moved on draft two to have a session.

[35:14] Seconded by Vice Chair. Do I have a roll call or can I roll call?

[35:19] Okay. Vice Chair Roy Jones. Councilmember Adam Stafford.

[35:24] And I did have a just a comment that I want to thank for the record.

[35:27] Now, I think that this was a really important piece of legislation because so many members

[35:34] of our community are being taken advantage of by basically folks that are claiming that

[35:40] they're renting a room and charging them various rates and, you know, mistreating them,

[35:45] and especially folks in our community that are undocumented.

[35:48] My one ask of these sponsors that we consider having the signage in both English and in Spanish,

[35:56] just considering that that may be necessary if you have the county but that is

[36:02] something that I think can be worked out in the future but I just wanted to say

[36:06] that for the record. Thank you. Council Member Olsen.

[36:10] Aye. Motion carries 3-0.

[36:15] Thank you.

[36:16] Yes.

[36:18] Yes. We'll just drop two.

[36:22] Yep.

[36:23] All right, next we have CR-87-2016, the Resulting Consortium, Maryland National Capital Parking Planning for the Purpose of Clarifying Section 12 of the Budget Ordnance and Re-Stating Associated Procedures Advocates to the Project Charge Program within the Approved Precious County portion of the fiscal year, 27 operating budget of the Maryland National Capital Parking Planning Commission, I'll pass to staff for an overview.

[36:48] Thank you Madam Chair. You did my overview that time and I'd just like to tell you that the resolution in the agenda item summary on pages 148 and 151 and that concludes my overview. Thank you.

[37:03] Thank you. Do I have a motion?

[37:06] A month.

[37:06] I'm just properly moved.

[37:08] by Customs for Adam, staffer, seconded by the vice chair,

[37:12] kind of a roll call, vice chair, or other?

[37:15] I, council member, Adam, staffer.

[37:16] I, council member, old side.

[37:18] Motion carries 30.

[37:20] All right, now I think we are moving back to our last agenda item,

[37:29] which will be CB74, 2020, six and ordinance concerning accessory dwelling units,

[37:35] and I'll pass it to staff for an overyear.

[37:37] This bill amends the zoning ordinance to add a definition for accessory dwelling units, consistent with state law.

[37:45] It doesn't exones that permit accessory dwelling units and establishes development regulations for the use.

[37:52] The bill is on pages 25 or 34 of your virtual binder.

[37:56] The planning board voted to support the bill with amendments.

[37:59] Their letter and backup materials are on pages 37 through 49 of your binder.

[38:04] There's staff right here to discuss their comments.

[38:08] Ms. Kriegannu is here and can provide a fiscal and policy overview of the legislation.

[38:15] I do want to note that the Department of Public Works had no comment on the bill.

[38:19] The Department of Housing and Community Development supports the bill.

[38:23] The City of Hyatt's bill, City of New Carrollton, City of Verwin Heights, City of College

[38:29] are all submitted letters supporting the legislation with various amendment recommendations.

[38:35] There were approximately 15 letters submitted from citizens supporting the legislation.

[38:42] MBAA, which is the Maryland Building Industry Association and the Prince George's County

[38:48] Association of Realtors, Simminate letters and support of the rest of the legislation.

[38:55] There are amendments to the bill and Ms. Canning can go over them.

[39:00] There are persons signed up to speak as well.

[39:03] Okay, I'm going to do a conference from the administration.

[39:07] The speakers list and then we'll do amendments.

[39:08] If I think that'll be a robust conversation.

[39:11] Oh, yes, I apologize.

[39:14] I'm so interested in other sponsors being here today.

[39:16] But I'll pass it first in the sponsor of the bill.

[39:20] Thank you so much.

[39:21] good morning colleagues and community and I just want to thank everyone for joining us this morning.

[39:27] I co-partnered in this very important work with our former task force chair and now EDC president

[39:33] and CEO, uh, Ingrid Watson, who I believe is here today. I saw her. Oh, he just stepped out. So when she

[39:40] comes back, we'll ask her to please stand, but uh, she took on this massive task and a statewide

[39:46] mandate I might add to issue regulations around ADUs. So since taking on this project more

[39:53] fully as sure of this task force, we have worked diligently to collect public feedback,

[39:59] a draft and a men.

[40:00] The legislation to meet these key deadlines. And so I just want to take a moment if we can just think all of our task force members, committee staff, who were in a very important part of preparing this legislation. We can just give them a round of applause. They worked very, very hard, very long night. Lots of meetings. Thank you so much. And I want to thank a special thank you to Director High Tower. She did a fantastic job of keeping this task force going forward during the transition.

[40:29] and I want to thank you for helping me.

[40:31] You know, last year was my first year.

[40:33] Okay, and I, you know, this is my first task force,

[40:35] and you really helped to keep the ball rolling.

[40:37] Thank you, and I appreciate all of the work

[40:38] that you do in this high-tower.

[40:41] All right, so I just really look forward

[40:43] to today's committee discussion.

[40:45] Thank you so much.

[40:47] And thank you for taking this on

[40:49] or something we had to do from the state.

[40:53] And so it's a huge undertaking

[40:55] because there's lots of opinions about what this should look like.

[40:59] So thank you for your work on this.

[41:01] Now we'll hear comments from the administration.

[41:08] Thank you.

[41:09] I believe our a few of our agencies have submitted comments

[41:11] and with those amendments, we are in support.

[41:15] Thank you.

[41:16] Now, did the administration have separate comments

[41:21] or I will go to speaker's list?

[41:26] Yep.

[41:27] Yeah.

[41:28] Right, my name.

[41:35] Thank you.

[41:36] Good morning, Madam Chair, Vice Chair Olsen.

[41:40] Council Adam Stafford. My name is Katina Showers with the National Health Park and Planning Commission.

[41:47] With me here today is Laura Tolerico and Natalia Gomez Rojas, and I am going to turn it over to Laura to talk about the deal.

[41:59] Good morning, council members. Laura Tolerico, associate general council,

[42:07] for the purpose of this portion of the hearing, all we have to say is the planning board recommended support of the bill with amendments that you're detailed in the July 2nd, 2026 letter.

[42:19] If you have any questions, we're happy to answer.

[42:24] Thank you.

[42:25] All right.

[42:26] Seeing no more speakers from the administration side.

[42:30] We'll move to the speakers list.

[42:33] Show court.

[42:43] Good morning.

[42:44] Chair Oriata and members of the committee.

[42:46] My name is Cheryl Court.

[42:47] I'm with the coalition for smarter growth.

[42:48] We advocate for we're not competent.

[42:50] Advocates were walkable,

[42:51] bikeable, inclusive,

[42:52] transitory communities as the most sustainable and equitable way for the

[42:56] DC region to grow and provide opportunities for all.

[42:58] We've worked for many years in court court, just kind of with a wonderful group of activists

[43:03] and community members in the group of rise-printed orders.

[43:06] Today, our my comments from a co-lifetime undergrad, we strongly support CB74 to permit

[43:12] accessory dwelling units, as a matter of right, on a lot with a single family detached home.

[43:18] We think that ADUs are an innovative housing type that helped to meet the needs of the county,

[43:24] to a diversity of housing needs.

[43:30] And while this bill is in part driven by a state law,

[43:35] we recognize that there's been a lot of discussion

[43:37] and policy and document discussion of ADUs over the years

[43:42] and sort of are excited to be getting to implementation.

[43:46] We urge the committee to support this bill

[43:48] without any onerous restrictions that make it that much harder

[43:52] to build an accessory living unit.

[43:53] high cost of building an AD remains a big challenge and a major barrier even after we lower

[44:01] regulatory barriers. So we want to urge you to not add costly and complicated requirements

[44:10] that will because we will have a major impact on the ability of a resident to build an accessory unit.

[44:16] I submitted testimony talking about the kind of the variety of benefits to accessory

[44:22] volumes. I think that people generally are interested in and it's at

[44:27] recognizes and we just wanted to go back to our caution. Don't overregulate

[44:33] ADUs. We find that jurisdictions that adopt ADU permissions often overload

[44:42] the rules with all sorts of complicated rules that make it that it's very

[44:47] difficult to build an ADU from a regulatory perspective, and then on top of that, then it's very

[44:52] difficult to finance an ADU. This is a big undertaking for a homeowner. We don't support.

[45:00] Honour occupancy requirements, for example, it's better to not complicate the permissions of these living units that serve a variety of benefits and uses for both individual households and the community. Thank you.

[45:18] Thank you.

[45:20] Lina, then Stephanie, and then lastly, it'll be Mariam.

[45:38] Hello, my name is Iliana Schinder. I am an architect, licensed in the State of Maryland,

[45:43] and I specialized on additional dwelling units. I'm the author of the book Housing for Humans

[45:50] that outlines requirements and details about developing additional dwelling units.

[45:57] I appreciate the opportunity to speak here today.

[46:02] I share the joy of having additional dwelling units as an opportunity to increase the affordable housing stock.

[46:13] Because we will allow residents to stay in their homes longer.

[46:17] Additional dwelling units also create low impact in existing infrastructure and services.

[46:23] and it will increase the tax space for the county. However, the standard for regulating

[46:30] ADUs have become too restrictive. Experience shows that regulations like honor occupancy

[46:38] requirement, restricts the development of ADUs, particularly for the transient population

[46:45] of these region, being for military service, health or age issues. Also, I noticed that additional

[46:56] dwelling units are treated as a different housing type, putting the burden on tenants by reducing

[47:03] the number of available units and also increasing their requirements that they need to comply with.

[47:09] So I would encourage that you treat additional dwelling units and the people that will occupy them as well as the people that will develop them as any other residents of the county by no not imposing extra limits as excluding short term rentals or imposing the requirement that the owner should remain in the property.

[47:35] Also, I have some technical recommendations when it comes to service fees such as water and waste

[47:43] connection. New construction tends to be increasingly more sustainable and less impactful

[47:49] than older structures. So in a way, the development of these structures will be an improvement

[47:56] to the county services.

[48:01] I have some other I remain open to share my experience on technical

[48:07] aspects such as power, water, fire protection and lot air coverage. But I will leave it at this

[48:15] and I thank you for encouraging the county to be more welcome to a more diverse resident base that

[48:23] includes the early adults with disability and population of that type, that is the main occupants

[48:30] of additional dwelling units.

[48:32] Thank you.

[48:34] Thank you.

[48:38] Stephanie, in Miriam.

[48:43] Good morning, Vice Chair Oriada and members of the Planning and Planning Housing and Economic

[48:48] Development Committee for the record.

[48:50] My name is Stephanie Ireland and I serve as the Vice Chair of the Prince George's County Association

[48:55] of Realtors, Legislative Committee, representing nearly 3,200 members.

[49:01] Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today in support of CB-074-2026,

[49:08] assessor-readwelling units, the Association supports expanding opportunities for assessor-readwelling

[49:15] units, ADUs, as they are an important step towards increasing housing supply, and providing

[49:21] flexible options, flexible housing options, for county residents at various stages of life.

[49:27] Reports from the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Office of the

[49:31] Comptroller Outline dramatic impacts are housing crisis is having on the state.

[49:38] Maryland will need approximately 590,000 new housing units to accommodate projected housing

[49:44] grow through 2025. Maryland will also need to increase its current housing production by more

[49:51] than 70% to meet that projected need. And on average, Maryland is losing more than 40,000 residents

[49:59] each year.

[50:00] The other states, with many moving to states with lower housing costs and more housing options.

[50:07] ADUs are a key tool in the fight to stem our housing crisis by increasing the availability of inventory

[50:14] through greater efficiency of existing housing stock on already developed land.

[50:20] They provide an opportunity to add housing without requiring additional residential land to be developed,

[50:29] making more efficient use of the county's existing housing stock and residential properties.

[50:34] 80 use offer practical and affordable housing solutions to expand briefly.

[50:41] They can provide seniors with the ability to age in place while remaining close to family.

[50:46] offers supportive living arrangements for individuals with disabilities and create attainable

[50:52] housing opportunities for young adults just beginning their careers.

[50:56] They can also provide homeowners with greater flexibility as their housing needs change over time while

[51:02] creating additional housing options within an existing neighborhood.

[51:07] We recognize that responsible implementation is important,

[51:11] and CB-074 provide standards addressing the size and the height of ADUs, limits ADUs to one

[51:20] per lot, and maintains the existing applicable health, safety zoning, and environmental

[51:26] requirements.

[51:27] We believe this provides a reasonable framework for expanding housing choice while respecting

[51:32] existing communities.

[51:35] with respect to time.

[51:38] The Prince George County Association of Rilters is in support of CB-074-2026 and we respectfully request the Council to vote favor.

[51:47] Thank you.

[52:03] Are you ready?

[52:05] Okay.

[52:05] Good morning, City Council members.

[52:07] My name is Miriam Bader.

[52:09] I am the Director of Planning and Community Development for the City of College Park.

[52:13] You all should have a letter that was submitted to you by our city council that was dated July 16th, 2026.

[52:22] I was going to read it, but I'm not going to read it because I only have three minutes.

[52:29] So city of college park understands the importance of accessory dwelling units.

[52:33] However, we have a unique situation because we're city of college park, right?

[52:38] We're the home to the University of Maryland.

[52:40] what we don't need is more satellite fraternity houses or more animal houses.

[52:47] So we need to put in some safeguards.

[52:51] We're not saying we're opposed to accessory dwelling units,

[52:53] but there are some reasonable ways that we can have accessory dwelling units

[52:57] and then also protect it from creating more,

[53:01] quote unquote, animal houses in college part.

[53:05] What I wanted to do was,

[53:07] In our letter, we outlined 13 concerns.

[53:13] I know Councilmember Olsen and Councilmember Dernoga worked really hard to address our concerns.

[53:20] And so I'm going to go through the list of what has been addressed and what still remains to be addressed.

[53:27] So number two on our letter, which was safety and habitability standards has been addressed.

[53:33] Individual sales has been addressed. Short-term rentals with Councilmember Dernogas Bill will be addressed.

[53:42] Environmental requirements with Councilmember Dernogas Bill will be addressed.

[53:48] Number of detached dwelling units that's already restricted to one per lot.

[53:53] So that's that's great. Number seven pathway to legalization.

[53:57] that is going to be addressed in Councilmember Olsen's amendment. Number eight and

[54:05] Hanson enforcement that will be addressed. And number nine with Councilmember

[54:11] Dernogas Bill, number 11 which is owner occupancy will be addressed. What we

[54:18] have remaining is number one, which is unrelated people. Living right now with a

[54:26] By definition of family, there's five unrelated people allowed per dwelling unit, so with the accessory dwelling unit with the current zoning ordinance with the current definition of family, we're talking about 10 unrelated people.

[54:42] In college park, that five is possibly exceeded. We have a hard time enforcing having five, so we're having more than five, and that could happen with the accessory dwelling unit.

[54:55] So what I'm recommending is...

[55:00] We were talking to the city attorney earlier today. I'm sorry, the county attorney. So what we're recommending is occupancy.

[55:10] It times out, but go ahead and finish. Okay, if I can finish that would be great. I really did try to make it shorter.

[55:15] What we're recommending is to amend Vice Chairman Olsen's amendment that occupancy in an ADU

[55:26] cannot exceed two occupants without a special exception.

[55:30] So if somebody wants more than two occupants in the ADU, they could go through the special

[55:36] exception process.

[55:37] And what that would do for college park is make sure that it's not just for additional students.

[55:45] So if they want more than two, let's say, there are family that would be fine.

[55:51] They just go through the special exception process and there wouldn't be any pushback from college park.

[55:57] As long as it's not, as it's a creating that animal house environment, which we're trying hard not to have, not to encourage.

[56:04] Thank you. Um, okay. Thank you. I can I can I go a little bit more. Um,

[56:10] you can give us that our amendment sheet. Did you submit it?

[56:14] Already did you submit that to the record? No, we just talked about it.

[56:20] Okay. How many more amendments do you? So, all right. Oh, oh.

[56:25] Well, okay. We have a we have a problem with number. Okay. Let, let me let me. Okay. Let me go with just

[56:31] One more. Three more. One more. Yeah. Okay. One more. Number 12. That's it's in our letter

[56:41] setbacks. So what I'm requesting the committee is to please please please consult with the fire

[56:49] Marshall and and get wording on this because that setback that that the bill is proposing.

[56:56] They were talking about, I don't know, having no setback requirement or not addressing it or doing the same setback as for an accessory dwelling unit.

[57:06] If you could please consult with the fire marshal, we want to make sure that when we're creating that accessory dwelling unit that there's not.

[57:14] It doesn't go against the fire marshal law. Of course, whatever the fire code is, you know, you'll have to meet them.

[57:20] Let's be clear about it in transparent.

[57:22] So people don't think they can do it to feed from the line

[57:25] when it's not meeting the fire standards.

[57:29] Thank you.

[57:30] Thank you.

[57:30] That concludes public comment for CB74, 2026.

[57:41] Now, open up the floor for comments from colleagues or motions.

[57:47] I do have one question.

[57:52] If we look at the zoning chart and permitted uses and non-residential based zones like

[58:02] commercial, CGO, industrial, I'm just curious of why they're permitted by right.

[58:10] In those?

[58:13] Okay, our complaining can end this with that one. Or if you have it, certainly I'd like to have you.

[58:19] Okay, we can both speak. We go for Madam Madam Chair. The reason is because if there are single family detached the wellings in those zones, we wanted to make sure we captured them in not prohibit the ADU in those zones.

[58:36] because that's what state law says.

[58:39] So it's a law says that we have to let it allow it in every zone,

[58:42] but in every zone, that allows single-family,

[58:46] detached, dwelling units.

[58:50] Council member Oriada, if I may add to what Ms. Hichara was saying,

[58:56] to be precise about what state law says,

[58:59] it says that you have to allow an ADU alongside any single-family

[59:03] to touch dwelling unit, and it doesn't actually specify

[59:06] whether it that single family detached whileing unit is permitted in the applicable zone.

[59:11] So essentially, just wherever there's a single family detached whileing next to that,

[59:16] an ADU must be allowed according to state law, and that's why the bill was drafted in the manner.

[59:22] It was allowing ADUs in zones even where the principal single family detached whileing is not permitted.

[59:29] That's because, is the assumption that one could have been built before it wasn't permitted?

[59:37] Yeah, that's exactly it.

[59:38] So for example, in our transit-oriented zones, like the LTO and RTO zones, there are single-family

[59:45] detached wellings in those zones that don't conform to their existing zoning.

[59:50] However, with this bill, what they'd be allowed to do is add on an ADU and that might actually

[59:55] bring them closer to the vision for those zones by identifying those processes.

[1:00:00] Parties that are near transit. So that's kind of a, was state law like silent on, like I didn't

[1:00:08] didn't know pine on if it was permitted or not. I'm assuming because they're assuming it's permitted.

[1:00:15] Let me read out the precise language for everyone. Just so it's super clear and I make sure I'm

[1:00:21] and it precisely write for you all,

[1:00:35] so it says, it is the policy of the state to promote and

[1:00:39] encourage the creation of accessory dwelling units on land with a single family detached dwelling

[1:00:46] unit as the primary dwelling unit in order to meet the housing of the housing needs of the

[1:00:51] citizens of Maryland. So it says on land with a single family detached dwelling unit and they didn't

[1:00:58] state that thought had to be a permitted use in the zone.

[1:01:08] I'm sure I've been counseled about the could be when the section we just showed you

[1:01:13] is now in the land use article so it's not just their policy. They put the language in

[1:01:18] that if you have a single family detached home, you have the right to have an ADU.

[1:01:23] And I think they were only looking at and Miss Lori could speak to it because she was on the

[1:01:27] task force. They just really wanted additional dwelling units because they're such a shortage.

[1:01:34] Yeah, I think

[1:01:37] I interpret that as the intention is that if it is a single family use, right,

[1:01:43] that we're not limiting it. I think it's a good step further to say that they're applying even

[1:01:49] if the zoning is not for that, that we're saying still

[1:01:56] continue to do our examples.

[1:01:59] So I apologize, you know, sometimes when you

[1:02:01] resume, they're already houses there.

[1:02:03] Right.

[1:02:03] So they're thinking of those people.

[1:02:05] They live there.

[1:02:06] They're single family house.

[1:02:08] So why, well, but it's a non-conforming use.

[1:02:14] So I just don't focus that on your SMAs that they're not.

[1:02:18] I mean, it's not their fault that we're so in the middle of it, but at a point of

[1:02:24] it was going to be redeveloped, like any non-conforming use, then at some point, it's

[1:02:30] own part of the land that can conform to the use.

[1:02:34] We understand you're concerned, honestly, but we've all been all the attorneys and planners

[1:02:39] and everyone have gone over and over.

[1:02:41] We just believe the language and the state planning department told us that as well, the language

[1:02:46] is supposed to provide to any single family

[1:02:49] details that's dwelling.

[1:02:51] And if I would also add, and I think if we need the

[1:02:54] office a lot of opine, there could be an unintended impact

[1:02:58] with respect to then disallowing this ability to build an

[1:03:02] ADU on your land when there is no specific prohibition

[1:03:06] by the state.

[1:03:07] So there could be a legal challenge with respect to whether or

[1:03:10] not I'm in a commercial zone, I have my home.

[1:03:14] I've been here for X number of years and therefore I now

[1:03:19] I'm precluded from using my land as the state has intended it to.

[1:03:23] So I think one of the reasons why the task force came to this conclusion

[1:03:28] is because we wanted to mirror the state, the state language, so therefore we did not have any

[1:03:34] any issues with respect to the law that would be passed in the county that would be in

[1:03:39] consistent with the state.

[1:03:41] If I'm going to say, we really work closely with what the state put forward.

[1:03:47] I don't think that the folks that we had on the task force, and there's some of the

[1:03:52] foremost experts on these topics, and they really did take their time and look at what

[1:03:57] the state put forward so that we would really be in compliance.

[1:04:01] So that's what I'll say to that.

[1:04:02] And I was going to ask if, if it's all right, if it's high tower candidates, the issue

[1:04:07] regarding the setbacks on the fire marshal if you know just as

[1:04:12] I'm thank you council member Adam Stafford I believe in the state law

[1:04:19] language that committee vice chair chair or or Yada had it says we are not

[1:04:30] allowed to address setbacks according to the state law and I believe it's this

[1:04:35] language here. I can read it out. Let me find a page.

[1:04:39] It says that I'm so sorry. It says that the standards of the

[1:04:43] accessory dwelling unit must be set back as we've already required in our

[1:04:48] law. So we already have a requirement on our law as to the set

[1:04:51] backs, the side and rear yard set backs. But I was going to bring up the

[1:04:55] fact that they still allows you to provide for a construction of

[1:05:00] Public health safety and welfare. So as the fire department and other agencies look at it, they may not be able to build where they want to. They might have to have more setbacks. So that might address a misbaders concern. If the fire department says something for some reason, they cannot build here. You're going to have to move it in some or you're going to have to attach it to the house. That's what they'll have to do.

[1:05:30] Okay. Any other questions or comments from the colleagues?

[1:05:35] Okay. Thank you. First, I want to thank the chair, the committee, and the prior chair,

[1:05:42] both Ms. Adam Stafford and Ms. Watson for their leadership on this.

[1:05:46] And it was a lot of work and wrangling and trying to figure things out.

[1:05:51] And I want to thank the staff, especially Ms. Hytaire for your work on this, because it was a lot of work.

[1:05:56] And I know it was, and all the members of the committee as well.

[1:06:05] So, let's see, I have a number of amendments.

[1:06:08] Some are Mr. Dinogas that he asked me to put forward some of mine and some are,

[1:06:16] some are, I think, from in the proposed draft two,

[1:06:21] which, so do you want me to do proposed draft two amendments first,

[1:06:25] which are, I think, more technical in nature, right?

[1:06:29] All right, so I'm going to offer the amendments that are in front of us.

[1:06:35] This is the county staff group amendments, this is how they're labeled.

[1:06:41] So I would move those amendments, there's 10 amendments there, and I believe in the

[1:06:45] size however, we would say these are pretty much technical in nature.

[1:06:51] I would move those amendments.

[1:06:55] Any second?

[1:06:58] Second?

[1:07:03] Yeah, I'm a roll call.

[1:07:04] So this is on the...

[1:07:05] Oh yes, I do.

[1:07:07] Vice Chair, Royado.

[1:07:09] Aye.

[1:07:11] Councilmember Adam Stafford.

[1:07:13] Aye.

[1:07:14] Councilmember Wilson.

[1:07:14] Aye.

[1:07:15] Motion carries the V0.

[1:07:16] Okay, great.

[1:07:17] Thanks.

[1:07:18] So those are the technical, the workgroup.

[1:07:21] Staff, Kelly Staff Group amendments.

[1:07:23] Okay.

[1:07:23] Next I'm going to do the...

[1:07:25] Mr. Knogos, amendments. Those are two amendments. The first amendment is, amendment 1,

[1:07:38] is extending the Chesapeake Bay critical area over lay zone conditions extending it to

[1:07:46] the LDO zone. So this would say on page 8, strike lines 19 through 20 and substitute F within

[1:07:54] in the RCO zone and the LDO zone of the Chesapeake Bay critical area overlay zone, assess

[1:08:01] reguling units are subject to the following additional requirements.

[1:08:05] So I would move that amendment.

[1:08:11] Second,

[1:08:15] have a roll call.

[1:08:16] Chair or a red?

[1:08:17] Aye.

[1:08:19] Council member Adam Stafford?

[1:08:20] Council member Wilson?

[1:08:21] Aye.

[1:08:22] Motion carries 3-0.

[1:08:24] The next amendment, the Mr. Dinoga, was offering is on page 8 strike lines 27 through 30 in substitute,

[1:08:35] a little eye eye, the construction of an accessory dwelling in it together with any associated walkways,

[1:08:41] padios, driveways and other imperfective surfaces constructed to serve it,

[1:08:45] shall not increase the lock coverage of the lock and more than 900 square feet.

[1:08:50] Within the chess, the CBCA ozone lock coverage shall be calculated as defined on in SOTL-5V of the county code, I would move that amendment.

[1:09:01] Second, camera roll call.

[1:09:03] Chair Oriada.

[1:09:05] Council member Adam Stafford.

[1:09:07] Council member Holes.

[1:09:08] Aye.

[1:09:08] Motion carries 30.

[1:09:10] Okay, so those are Mr. Chair Holes amendments.

[1:09:14] Next, I have two three amendments, actually.

[1:09:20] So the first amendment, and before I get to this, let me mention, you know, I've worked closely with the City College Park, as well as others, and there's some things that we can do, some things we can't do, some things that are legally questionable that I'm not doing, including the special exception, language that is better talked about, I'm not doing that.

[1:09:50] Because, you know, it's been talking to attorneys. It just seems like that's very extremely

[1:09:55] If not impossible, it's, you know, extremely difficult and problematic.

[1:10:00] And runs counter to what the state mandates us to do. So the first amendment, this would be dealing with

[1:10:15] occupancy limits in the 80 years, and this would be on page. I believe it could go in the same place

[1:10:21] Ms. Canning and Ms. McNeil, that's the original, the first amendment language that I had.

[1:10:28] So this would be on page 8, after line 18, in section 27, dash 5, 2, 0, 3, B, 19, F, would insert the following language.

[1:10:41] Now with standing the definition of family, in section 27, dash 2500, the maximum occupancy within the access

[1:10:50] well unit shall be four persons. If the principal dwelling unit includes rental units,

[1:10:57] the maximum occupancy in the ADU shall be reduced by the number of persons renting in the principal

[1:11:04] dwelling.

[1:11:09] Make sure that that's then captured.

[1:11:16] And this is, you know, we are Madam Chair,

[1:11:19] we're trying to thread the needle here. We, I think we all understand the need for more affordable housing

[1:11:26] and we all understand why the state is mandating this across the state.

[1:11:32] We are in housing crisis.

[1:11:34] We do need to make sure we're accommodating people, workers, et cetera.

[1:11:42] In the state of Maryland, this bill that we're set to pass does increase the density.

[1:11:50] We also have to be mindful of our neighborhoods and our communities and a lot of the issues

[1:11:56] that have been brought up to us of our municipalities and residents and and residents and and civic leaders.

[1:12:04] So, so I move that amendment. Second.

[1:12:07] I'm a roll call. Here or the other. I count some member Adam Stafford. I count some member

[1:12:12] Olson. Hi. Motion carries three zero. Okay. What do you want to do? Okay. Next amendment is

[1:12:24] This amendment number two, this is a accessory dwelling units constructed prior to the effective date of this act.

[1:12:31] So there are existing unpromoted ADUs.

[1:12:37] This will be on page 8 after line 18 and section 27 dash 5203b19f insert all accessory dwelling units constructed without a permit prior to the effective date of this act.

[1:12:50] She'll begin compliance with the provisions that act by contacting and working with the Department of

[1:12:55] Permitting, Inspections and Enforcement within 90 days of the acts effective date.

[1:13:01] All previously unpermitted accessory dwelling units shall meet all applicable public health, safety,

[1:13:08] and habitability, local regulations, and building code requirements. I would move that amendment.

[1:13:22] I'm so sorry and I'm sure it's understood but in your first amendment, you can't let it reduce below one. Someone has the right to live in it right.

[1:13:32] Well, it's saying that that's that's the number.

[1:13:36] I'm just saying we have to come back to that yet.

[1:13:39] Okay.

[1:13:41] So, Roko?

[1:13:42] I have, if I may interject to Madam Chair,

[1:13:45] on the first sentence,

[1:13:48] where you refer to begin compliance with this act,

[1:13:54] I would recommend that it should stay the same thing in the second paragraph

[1:14:00] that it should comply with all health safety,

[1:14:04] have at local regulations. So that it doesn't get confused in what's in the act versus what all of the other code requirements that it must comply with.

[1:14:14] And I think that statement in the second paragraph where it says public health safety,

[1:14:19] have it ability local regulations and building code requirement encompasses all,

[1:14:25] rather than just saying this act.

[1:14:30] I think it should say the same thing in both.

[1:14:33] I mean, that face value that makes sense to me.

[1:14:38] I haven't had time to digest it, but Kathy, is that scanning does that make sense?

[1:14:44] Yes.

[1:14:45] We'll up here.

[1:14:48] It's basically saying the thing, but then the first one, it's saying, it shall provide

[1:14:51] the provisions of this act.

[1:14:54] The second one is saying, you know, shall meet all applicable public and health safety.

[1:14:59] at the end.

[1:15:00] It's probably consistent. It should be consistent. It should say both. One or the other. This act, or I think the

[1:15:08] people. Does that? I think that makes sense. Ms. Canning, are you following that?

[1:15:13] If I might add referencing this act, which is referred to that bill, and it might not be hard to trace going forward

[1:15:20] if that language is codified. So I would suggest using you to the second paragraph or this subtitle to refer to the zoning ordinance

[1:15:29] That's a thousand times. Okay, we've captured that and yes, that changed. We've made it in the amendment. Thank you for catching up.

[1:15:36] Just if you could work together with Ms. Canning to make sure we have the exact language that we need, but that's yes.

[1:15:43] Okay.

[1:15:44] I have a motion and a second, can I have a roll call?

[1:15:50] Vice-Terroriada, I count some member Adam Stafford.

[1:15:53] I count some members.

[1:15:54] Aye. Motion carries 3-0.

[1:15:56] Okay. And the third amendment I have is this was a clean-up item.

[1:16:02] It's just on page 8, in line 19 strike F and substitute G.

[1:16:08] So moved.

[1:16:09] Second, can I have a roll call?

[1:16:11] Vice-Terroriada, I count some member Adam Stafford.

[1:16:14] I, Council Member Olsen.

[1:16:16] Motion carries 3-0.

[1:16:18] Thank you.

[1:16:20] Thank you, colleagues.

[1:16:21] And thank you to staff and everyone here.

[1:16:25] You know, look, I think that we're trying to make the best decisions we can.

[1:16:31] And working together, I think we're doing the best we can for the residents of Princess County.

[1:16:36] I will also say that a number of the items that have been raised, including from College Park,

[1:16:45] are also being addressed in a separate bill, Mr. Dr. Noga, talking about occupancy requirements

[1:16:51] of one of the dwelling units and some of the other issues will be covered in other legislation.

[1:17:02] Thank you.

[1:17:03] Do I have a motion to move by relies amended move favorable as amended amended second camera roll call

[1:17:10] My stereo we have a

[1:17:13] Council member Wilson motion carries three zero. Thank you, and we'll have a clean version of the bill with all the amendments

[1:17:21] Sit two colleagues before introduction. Is there any other business for the body

[1:17:27] Seeing the motion to adjourn all those in favor. Aye, we are adjourned

[1:17:33] Thanks everyone.

Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee - Revised - CR-087-2026 added; CB-63-2026 removed - Sep 3rd, 2026

Agenda

Transcript

Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee - **Revised - CR-087-2026 added; CB-63-2026 removed** - Sep 3rd, 2026

Agenda

Transcript

Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee - Revised - CR-087-2026 added; CB-63-2026 removed - Sep 3rd, 2026