COUNTY COUNCIL OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY ......2020/12/07  · COUNTY COUNCIL OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY,...

31
COUNTY COUNCIL OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND Minutes of Virtual Legislative Session 2020, Legislative Day No. 32 December 7, 2020 6:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Allison Pickard at 6:00 P.M. Pastor Paul Arcand, Lighthouse Baptist Church, Severna Park, gave the Invocation. Ms. Fiedler led the Pledge of Allegiance. The meeting was held remotely via Zoom Webinar, beginning with roll call of all present. The Auditor’s Office was represented by the County Auditor Susan Smith. The following members of the County Council were present: Sarah F. Lacey First District Allison Pickard Second District Nathan Volke Third District Andrew C. Pruski Fourth District Amanda Fiedler Fifth District Lisa D.B. Rodvien Sixth District Jessica Haire Seventh District OPEN MEETINGS ACT JoAnne Gray, Administrative Officer, read a statement from the County Attorney regarding the Open Meetings Act. She stated the Md. Open Meetings Act, a state law, requires public meetings to be open to the public and to be “held in places reasonably accessible to individuals who would like to attend these meetings.” In addition, provisions of the County Charter and the rules of the County Council require meetings to be open to the public and held at the County seat, meaning Annapolis. The virtual format of this meeting of the County Council is due to the COVID-19 emergency and is necessary in light of the serious health risks associated with public gatherings, as well as the various Executive Orders from the Governor and the County Executive limiting public gatherings. While a virtual meeting of this type was not envisioned by the Open Meetings Act, steps have been taken to ensure that this virtual meeting includes alternate accessibility features that the Open Meetings Act Compliance Board and the Courts have reviewed and approved, such as having a call-in phone number that allows anyone with a telephone to call and listen to the meeting, broadcasting the meeting with video and audio on cable TV and on the Web, allowing written public comments to the legislation be filed with the Clerk and considered by the Council, and now allowing the public to call in or appear via zoom and testify live. The County Office of Law has opined that the public access provided by this technology makes this virtual meeting reasonably accessible to the public, as required by the OMA. The Office of Law has also reviewed whether, with these technological features in place, it is still necessary to suspend Council Rules 3-105 and 3-106 that require public participation and reasonable seating for the public and the media. The conclusion is that it is not necessary to suspend these rules, for the same reason they have concluded that the measures implemented by the Council for virtual meetings satisfy the reasonable accessibility requirement under the OMA. The virtual format of the meetings allows public participation and media access, as required by the Rules, and also allows unlimited participation that is not subject to seat capacity limits in the chambers or in

Transcript of COUNTY COUNCIL OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY ......2020/12/07  · COUNTY COUNCIL OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY,...

  • COUNTY COUNCIL OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND

    Minutes of

    Virtual Legislative Session 2020, Legislative Day No. 32

    December 7, 2020 – 6:00 P.M.

    The meeting was called to order by Chairman Allison Pickard at 6:00 P.M. Pastor Paul

    Arcand, Lighthouse Baptist Church, Severna Park, gave the Invocation. Ms. Fiedler led the

    Pledge of Allegiance. The meeting was held remotely via Zoom Webinar, beginning with roll

    call of all present. The Auditor’s Office was represented by the County Auditor Susan Smith. The following members of the County Council were present:

    Sarah F. Lacey First District

    Allison Pickard Second District

    Nathan Volke Third District

    Andrew C. Pruski Fourth District

    Amanda Fiedler Fifth District

    Lisa D.B. Rodvien Sixth District

    Jessica Haire Seventh District

    OPEN MEETINGS ACT

    JoAnne Gray, Administrative Officer, read a statement from the County Attorney regarding

    the Open Meetings Act. She stated the Md. Open Meetings Act, a state law, requires public

    meetings to be open to the public and to be “held in places reasonably accessible to individuals

    who would like to attend these meetings.” In addition, provisions of the County Charter and the

    rules of the County Council require meetings to be open to the public and held at the County seat,

    meaning Annapolis.

    The virtual format of this meeting of the County Council is due to the COVID-19

    emergency and is necessary in light of the serious health risks associated with public gatherings,

    as well as the various Executive Orders from the Governor and the County Executive limiting

    public gatherings. While a virtual meeting of this type was not envisioned by the Open Meetings

    Act, steps have been taken to ensure that this virtual meeting includes alternate accessibility

    features that the Open Meetings Act Compliance Board and the Courts have reviewed and

    approved, such as having a call-in phone number that allows anyone with a telephone to call and

    listen to the meeting, broadcasting the meeting with video and audio on cable TV and on the Web,

    allowing written public comments to the legislation be filed with the Clerk and considered by the

    Council, and now allowing the public to call in or appear via zoom and testify live. The County

    Office of Law has opined that the public access provided by this technology makes this virtual

    meeting reasonably accessible to the public, as required by the OMA.

    The Office of Law has also reviewed whether, with these technological features in place,

    it is still necessary to suspend Council Rules 3-105 and 3-106 that require public participation and

    reasonable seating for the public and the media. The conclusion is that it is not necessary to suspend

    these rules, for the same reason they have concluded that the measures implemented by the Council

    for virtual meetings satisfy the reasonable accessibility requirement under the OMA. The virtual

    format of the meetings allows public participation and media access, as required by the Rules, and

    also allows unlimited participation that is not subject to seat capacity limits in the chambers or in

  • the building. For these reasons, they have concluded that the requirements of Rules 3-105 and 3-

    106 are being satisfied and therefore it is not necessary to waive these rules.

    Council has also asked whether it is necessary to suspend Rule 3-102 and 3-103, which require the

    meeting to be held at the County seat. In 2013, at the request of the Council, the OOL opined that

    a councilmember who was appearing at a meeting via a live video monitor would satisfy the venue

    requirement through virtual presence. It is noted that the Administrative Officer to the Council

    controls the hearing and is present in the Arundel Center during meetings, and the virtual meeting

    is hosted by the Assistant Admin Officer from a location in Annapolis. Those factors support the

    OOL’s conclusion that the meetings are being held at the County seat and therefore it is not

    necessary to suspend Rules 3-102 and 3-103.

    ETHICS STATEMENT

    JoAnne Gray, Administrative Officer, stated that under certain circumstances, members of

    the public may qualify as lobbyists when they testify before the County Council. If so, the law

    requires that certain information be filed with the Ethics Commission. The Chairman of the Ethics

    Commission has asked that those who wish to testify in any form review the General Information

    on Lobbying sheet located on the Ethics Web Site under Forms and Publications. If there are any

    questions about lobbying requirements, please contact the Ethics Commission at 410-222-4413.

    CALL OF RESOLUTION FOR INTRODUCTION AND VOTE

    RESOLUTION NO. 51-20

    The Chairman called Resolution No. 51-20, Resolution electing a Chairman and Vice

    Chairman of the County Council; and the Administrative Officer read the resolution.

    Mr. Pruski thanked Ms. Pickard for her service.

    Ms. Pickard thanked all staff and Council for their support.

    Resolution No. 51-20 was adopted by the following roll call vote:

    Aye – Ms. Lacey, Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard

    Nay – Mr. Volke

    INVITATION TO AUDIENCE

    The Administrative Officer stated there were two submissions of written public testimony

    received, which were shared with the Council and posted on the County Council website.

    Susan Margulies, Annapolis, spoke on the exemption for short term rentals during Boat

    Show week.

    PRELIMINARY MOTION

    On motion of Ms. Rodvien, seconded by Mr. Pruski, the Council voted that the partial

    reading of any bill, resolution, minutes, or amendment constitutes the reading of the whole.

  • APPROVAL OF MINUTES

    On motion of Ms. Rodvien, seconded by Mr. Pruski, the minutes of November 16, 2020

    were approved as presented.

    INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

    BILL NO. 105-20 – AN ORDINANCE concerning: Finance, Taxation, and Budget – Real

    Property Taxes – Tax Credits – Disabled Veterans and Their Surviving Spouses – FOR

    the purpose of defining certain terms; establishing a real property tax credit for disabled

    veterans and their surviving spouses; establishing eligibility criteria for the credit;

    providing for the calculation and duration of the credit; establishing a deadline for filing

    for the credit and the form of application for the credit; providing for the termination of

    the credit; and generally relating to finance, taxation, and budget.

    by Ms. Haire, Ms. Fiedler, and Mr. Volke

    BILL NO. 106-20 – AN ORDINANCE concerning: Purchasing – Procurement –

    Transitioning the County’s Vehicle Fleet to Hybrid and Zero-emission Vehicles – FOR

    the purpose of transitioning to County vehicles that are hybrid or zero-emission vehicles

    in certain circumstances; defining “hybrid vehicle” and “zero-emission vehicle”;

    establishing certain deadlines to complete the transition; establishing a reporting

    requirement; requiring a long-term plan by a certain date; and generally relating to

    purchasing.

    by Ms. Rodvien and Ms. Lacey

    INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS

    RESOLUTION NO. 52-20 – RESOLUTION appointing an Administrative Officer to the

    County Council

    by the Entire Council

    RESOLUTION NO. 53-20 – RESOLUTION appointing an Assistant Administrative Officer

    to the County Council

    by the Entire Council

    RESOLUTION NO. 54-20 – RESOLUTION approving the nomination of a member to the

    Anne Arundel County Human Relations Commission

    by Ms. Pickard, Chair

    (by request of the County Executive)

    SUSPENSION OF RULES TO VOTE ON RESOLTUION NOS. 48-20 AND 49-20

    On motion of Ms. Rodvien, seconded by Mr. Pruski, the motion to vote on Resolution Nos.

    48-20 and 49-20, out of order, was approved by the following roll call vote.

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard, Mr. Volke,

    Ms. Lacey

    Nay – None

  • CALL OF RESOLUTIONS FOR FINAL READING AND VOTE

    RESOLUTION NO. 52-20

    The Chairman called Resolution No. 52-20, Resolution appointing an Administrative

    Officer to the County Council; and the Administrative Officer read the resolution.

    Ms. Rodvien shared her happiness of the choice for Administrative Officer.

    Ms. Pickard welcomed Laura Corby to the team.

    Resolution No. 52-20 was adopted by the following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard, Mr. Volke

    Ms. Lacey

    Nay – None

    RESOLUTION NO. 53-20

    The Chairman called Resolution No. 53-20, Resolution appointing an Assistant

    Administrative Officer to the County Council; and the Administrative Officer read the resolution.

    Ms. Rodvien expressed her thrill of the appointment.

    Resolution No. 53-20 was adopted by the following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard, Mr. Volke

    Ms. Lacey

    Nay – None

    RESOLUTION NO. 54-20

    The Chairman called Resolution No. 54-20, Resolution approving the nomination of a

    member to the Anne Arundel County Human Relations Commission; and the Administrative

    Officer read a portion of the title

    Kaley Schultze, Boards and Commissions Coordinator and Legislative Assistant, Office of

    CE, was accompanied by Christine Neiderer, Assistant County Attorney, Office of Law.

    Ms. Schultze stated the resolution appoints Joseph Clapsaddle as the County Executive’s

    State appointment to the Human Relations Commissions. He will serve the remainder of the term

    previously served by Georgia Noone-Sherrod, who resigned. She stated his initial term will end

    on November 17, 2021.

    Mr. Volke stated the County Executive was allowed four appointments to the Human

    Relations Commission, one being a human relations position. He asked if there was a certain

    background in human relations that helps appointees with their position.

    Ms. Schultze stated Mr. Clapsaddle was retired and had a background in public relations.

    She stated he was chosen to represent a community which was not on the Commission yet.

  • Mr. Volke stated he reviewed the recent Human Relations meetings, and asked if there was

    a need to have Mr. Clapsaddle on the Commission by the next meeting.

    Ms. Schultze stated the Commission strives to fill open vacancies as quickly as possible.

    She stated there were important discussions happening at the next meeting to plan out the next

    year, causing a need for Mr. Clapsaddle to learn the position and help with the planning.

    Mr. Volke stated the vacancy was open for three months and asked if there was a need for

    the position to be filled right away. He expressed his concern about not having advanced notice.

    Ms. Schultze stated the vacancies needed to be filled as quickly as possible with qualified

    applicants.

    Resolution No. 54-20 was adopted by the following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard, Ms. Lacey

    Nay – Mr. Volke

    RESOLUTION NO. 48-20

    The Chairman called for the public hearing on Resolution No. 48-20, Resolution approving

    the continued service of Chris Trumbauer as Acting Budget Officer; and the Administrative

    Officer read a portion of the title

    Pete Baron, Director, Government Affairs, was accompanied by Chris Trumbauer, Acting

    Budget Officer, and Lori Blair Klasmeier, Legislative Deputy County Attorney, Office of Law.

    Mr. Baron stated the resolution extends the service of Chris Trumbauer as Acting Budget

    Officer until April 11, 2021. He stated the Administration is searching for the next Budget Officer.

    Mr. Volke asked what a realistic timeframe is for appointing a Budget Officer.

    Mr. Baron stated there is not an exact timeline, and the Administration is looking to fill the

    position as soon as possible.

    Mr. Volke asked if any internal candidates were being looked at.

    Mr. Baron stated he could not comment on Personnel decisions.

    Ms. Fiedler asked if Mr. Trumbauer would be in the position through the Budget season.

    Mr. Baron stated the hope is to fill the position with sufficient time.

    Mr. Trumbauer stated the budget for the team does not start on May 1, 2021, budgets have

    already begun being put together. He stated the goal is to make a smooth transition and make sure

    the budget team has all the support it needs.

    Mr. Volke asked how having an Acting Budget Officer is impacting the team since Mr.

    Trumbauer is also a CAO.

  • Mr. Trumbauer stated he is not a Deputy CAO. He stated his permanent position is Director

    of Communications and Policy.

    The Administrative Officer stated there were no submissions of written public testimony

    received on Resolution No. 48-20.

    There was no one present who wished to speak, and the hearing was concluded.

    The Chairman called Resolution No. 48-20 Resolution approving the continued service of

    Chris Trumbauer as Acting Budget Officer; and the Administrative Officer read a portion of the

    title.

    Resolution No. 48-20 was adopted by the following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard, Mr. Volke

    Ms. Lacey

    Nay – None

    RESOLUTION NO. 49-20

    The Chairman called for the public hearing on Resolution No. 49-20, Resolution approving

    the appointment of Amal Awad as Chief of Police; and the Administrative Officer read a portion

    of the title.

    Pete Baron, Director, Government Affairs, was accompanied by Amal Awad, Incoming

    Police Chief, and Lori Blair Klasmeier, Legislative Deputy County Attorney, Office of Law.

    Mr. Baron stated the resolution approves the appointment of Amal Awad as Chief of Police

    for Anne Arundel County. He expressed thanks to all who helped in the committee to find the new

    Police Chief.

    Chief. Awad thanked all involved with the search. She stated she is a twenty-seven year

    law enforcement executive, including community policing. She expressed her beliefs in law

    enforcement and policing in the County.

    Ms. Haire asked what Chief Awad’s vision for the Police Department is in two years and

    ten years, and how she plans on getting there.

    Chief Awad stated the foundation has already been laid in progressive initiative, and her

    vision is to set up listening sessions internally with the rank and file, and to work with the

    community and officers to keep the vision going. She stated she will look at what needs to be

    improved and work with the people who can do that.

    Ms. Pickard asked what Chief Awad thought the biggest challenges facing modern policing

    were.

    Chief Awad stated the climate of the country with regard to police reform is one of the

    biggest challenges. She stated restoration of the community’s faith is one of the most important

    goals, along with finding common ground.

  • Mr. Volke asked if she spoke with the County Executive about Civilian Review Boards.

    Chief Awad stated she had preliminary discussions with the County Executive, and is

    looking at Prince George’s Board as an example.

    Mr. Volke stated the Civilian Review Board is a secondary review method, after the Police

    Department has reviewed and made a recommendation. He asked if that was an appropriate method

    for Anne Arundel County.

    Chief Awad stated there will be many measures presented to the January General

    Assembly.

    There was further discussion regarding Chief Awad’s goals and vision.

    Ms. Rodvien, Vice Chairman, took over the meeting due to technical difficulties.

    The Administrative Officer stated there were no submissions of written public testimony

    received on Resolution No. 49-20.

    There was no one present who wished to speak, and the hearing was concluded.

    The Vice Chairman called Resolution No. 49-20, Resolution approving the appointment of

    Amal Awad as Chief of Police; and the Administrative Officer read a portion of the title.

    Mr. Volke expressed his support in Chief Awad as Chief of Police.

    Ms. Fiedler shared her support in Chief Awad as Chief of Police.

    Ms. Haire expressed her support for Chief. Awad.

    Mr. Pruski thanked Chief Awad for her heart for the County.

    Ms. Rodvien stated she supported Chief. Awad.

    Resolution No. 49-20 was adopted by the following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard, Mr. Volke

    Ms. Lacey

    Nay – None

    RECESS

    On motion of Mr. Volke, seconded by Mr. Pruski, the Council voted to recess at 7:25 P.M.

    RECOVENE

    The Council reconvened at 7:40 P.M. with all Councilmembers present.

    Ms. Lacey, Chairman, resumed control of the meeting.

  • PUBLIC HEARINGS AND CALL OF BILLS FOR FINAL READING AND/OR VOTE

    BILL NO. 69-20 (As Amended)

    The Chairman called for the public hearing on Bill No. 69-20, as amended, An Ordinance

    concerning: Zoning – Farm or Agricultural Heritage Site Stays and Special Events – For the

    purpose of expanding the uses allowed on farms and agricultural heritage sites; defining certain

    terms; allowing farm or agricultural heritage site events as a temporary use in RA, RLD, and R1

    residential districts under certain circumstances; allowing “9 to 15 annual farm or agricultural

    heritage site special events” as a conditional use and “farm or agricultural heritage site stay” as

    conditional uses in RA, RLD, and R1 residential districts; allowing “16 to 30 annual farm or

    agricultural heritage site special events” and “farm or agricultural heritage site stay” as special

    exception uses as a special exception use in RA, RLD, and R1 residential districts; adding the

    conditional use requirements for “9 to 15 annual farm or agricultural heritage site special events”

    and “farm or agricultural heritage site stay”; adding the special exception use requirements for “16

    to 30 annual farm or agricultural heritage site special events” and “farm or agricultural heritage

    site stay”; requiring the Office of Planning and Zoning to report to the County Council within

    certain time periods; and generally relating to zoning; and the Administrative Officer read the title.

    Pete Baron, Director, Government Affairs, was accompanied by Lori Rhodes, Deputy Chief

    Administrative Officer, Land Use, Planning & Zoning, and Kelly Kenney, Senior Assistant County

    Attorney, Office of Law.

    Mr. Baron stated the County Executive did file an apparent conflict of interest form with

    the Ethics Commission. He stated the bill allows the use of farm or agricultural heritage site stays

    and farm or agricultural heritage sites special events as an extension of a temporary use, or

    conditional or special exception use. He stated the County Executive believes this approach to the

    new upper limits was reasonable to protect neighbors from potential negative impacts.

    The Administrative Officer stated there were five submissions of written public testimony,

    which was shared with the Council and posted on the County Council website.

    The following persons spoke on Bill No. 69-20, as amended:

    Anna Cheney, Honey’s Harvest Farm, Lothian

    Patricia Oehmke, St. Leonard

    Deana Tice, Enticement Farm and Stables, Harwood

    Michael Lofton, Harwood

    Sarah Campbell, New Roots Farm, West River

    Jessica Klahr, Chesapeake Beach

    Ray Greenstreet II, Greenstreet Growers, Inc., Lothian

    Ayia Lindquist, Edgewater

    There was no one else present who wished to speak, and the hearing was concluded.

    The Chairman called Bill No. 69-20, as amended, An Ordinance concerning: Zoning –

    Farm or Agricultural Heritage Site Stays and Special Events; and the Administrative Officer read

    a portion of the title.

  • Bill No. 69-20, as amended, was passed by the following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard, Ms. Lacey

    Nay – Mr. Volke

    BILL NO. 86-20

    The Chairman called Bill No. 86-20, An Ordinance concerning: Subdivision and

    Development – Subdivision – Site Development – Plan Review Timelines and Requirements; and

    the Administrative Officer read a portion of the title.

    Pete Baron, Director, Government Affairs, was accompanied by Lori Rhodes, Deputy Chief

    Administrative Officer, Land Use, Matt Johnston, Environmental Policy Director, Steve Kaii-Ziegler, Director, Office of Planning and Zoning, Courtney Wilson, Lori Allen and Kelly Krinetz, Office of

    Planning & Zoning, and Kinley Bray, Office of Law.

    Mr. Baron stated the purpose of the bill is to amend the procedural plan and review

    timelines, allowing time for the applicant to prepare their applications, which will reduce the

    number of time extensions. He stated the bill is a process bill, and the intent is to make the process

    better for the applicant and the public.

    Amendment No. 1

    On page 5 of the proposed bill, in line 39, strike “OF”.

    On motion of Mr. Pruski, seconded by Ms. Rodvien, Amendment No. 1 was adopted by

    the following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard, Mr. Volke

    Ms. Lacey

    Nay – None

    Amendment No. 2

    On page 4 of the proposed bill, in line 17, insert opening and closing brackets before and

    after “12”; and in the same line, before “months” insert “18”.

    On motion of Mr. Pruski, seconded by Ms. Rodvien, Amendment No. 2 was adopted by

    the following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard, Mr. Volke

    Ms. Lacey

    Nay – None

    Amendment No. 3

    On page 5 of the proposed bill, in line 16, after “LESS” insert “ADJACENT TO AN ESTABLISHMENT EXISTING AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF BILL NO. 86-20”.

  • Ms. Haire asked for clarification between existing establishments and new one in terms of

    the effect it has on site development plans.

    Mr. Baron stated the amendment clarifies that the exemption is to eliminate the need for

    current policy.

    Ms. Bray stated this amendment eliminates the need for a current policy document at the

    Office of Planning and Zoning, which states that an SCP is not necessary for the types of changes

    for seasonal or permanent outdoor restaurant seating.

    Ms. Wilson stated the outdoor seating policy began in 2013 and has been updated two times

    since. She stated with the minimum number of seats decided, there would be no impact to traffic

    or utilities.

    Ms. Haire stated the amendment limits only existing restaurants, and new restaurants would

    not be under this exemption.

    Ms. Wilson agreed. She stated the amendment was to clarify the change for existing

    establishments only because with new developments, APF was addressed all at once in the

    beginning.

    Ms. Haire clarified if a new establishment built without outdoor seating wanted to add

    outdoor seating later on, it would not be eligible.

    Ms. Wilson stated the exemption would still exist since the building would be established.

    Ms. Bray stated the intention is to provide the minimal addition without requiring an SCP

    process, allowing for a permit without requiring a test for APF. She stated the issue was that if a

    permit or application did not result in a test for APF, it would provide an exemption for an

    establishment built next year that wants outdoor seating later.

    Ms. Lacey asked if a new business being open in an existing building would receive the

    same status as the previous business under this amendment.

    Ms. Bray stated the approvals would transfer and there would be no need for a new

    application.

    Ms. Wilson agreed.

    Mr. Pruski asked the Administration’s position on the clarification of the amendment.

    Mr. Baron stated they would be open to clarifying as needed.

    Ms. Haire stated the issue was the date on the amendment.

    Linda Schuett, Council Attorney, stated the amendment does not reflect what the

    Administration was trying to do.

  • On motion of Mr. Pruski, seconded by Ms. Rodvien, Amendment No. 3 was adopted by

    the following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Pickard, Ms. Lacey

    Nay – Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Haire, Mr. Volke

    Amendment No. 4

    On page 5 of the proposed bill, strike in their entirety lines 18 through 20, inclusive; and

    in lines 22 and 25, strike “(11)” and “(12)”, respectively, and substitute “(10)” and “(11)”,

    respectively.

    Mr. Baron stated the amendment runs parallel with the correction in Amendment No. 5.

    Mr. Volke asked for clarification on how this amendment ties to the next amendment.

    Mr. Baron stated the intent in Amendment No. 5 is to address a cumulative disturbance of

    less than 5,000 feet specific to farming.

    Ms. Bray stated the intent was to provide the ability for a farm accessory use, which did

    not exceed 5,000 square feet of cumulative disturbance or 1,200 square feet of floor area, not any

    use up to 5,000 square feet in cumulative area. This amendment deletes subsection 10, and

    Amendment No. 5 changes the produce market exemption to incorporate up to 5,000 square feet

    of cumulative impervious areas.

    Ms. Wilson stated 5,000 square feet or more of disturbance changes the storm drainage,

    APF requirement testing, and a higher number area of disturbance.

    Ms. Rhodes stated she met with the agricultural community who were looking for a

    threshold to keep them out of the site development process. She stated that Article 16 had

    thresholds regarding the disturbance being less than 5,000, which the Department did not want to

    exceed.

    Mr. Volke clarified that the bill is too wide in certain ideas so Amendment No. 4 was

    created to take out the excess, and Amendment No. 5 creates the original intention.

    Mr. Baron agreed.

    Ms. Haire stated the 5,000 square feet exemption exists elsewhere in the Code. She asked

    why the exemption is being moved from one place to another.

    Ms. Schuett asked if there needed to be a site development plan made if a business wanted

    to add 100 square feet of impervious surface on a project.

    Ms. Wilson stated there would not be a site development plan needed.

    Ms. Schuett asked why the exemption would only be applicable to farming.

  • Ms. Rhodes stated a specific decision was based on providing economic opportunities for

    rural economies.

    There was further discussion on the intent of Amendment No 4.

    On motion of Mr. Pruski, seconded by Ms. Pickard, Amendment No. 4 was adopted by the

    following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Pickard, Ms. Lacey

    Nay – Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Haire, Mr. Volke

    Amendment No. 5

    On page 5 of the proposed bill, in line 25, strike “AN ACCESSORY USE AS A PRODUCE

    MARKET” and substitute “A USE ACCESSORY TO FARMING”; in the same line, after “TO” insert “A

    CUMULATIVE”; and in line 26, after “AREA” insert “FOR WHICH THE PROPOSED CUMULATIVE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE IS LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF BILL NO. 86-

    20”.

    Mr. Baron stated the amendment runs parallel to the previous amendment.

    On motion of Mr. Pruski, seconded by Ms. Pickard, Amendment No. 5 was adopted by the

    following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard, Mr. Volke

    Ms. Lacey

    Nay – None

    Amendment No. 6

    On page 5 of the proposed bill, in line 46, after the second “AREA” insert “FOR WHICH THE DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIONS AND PERMITS HAS APPROVED A CONCEPT PLAN FOR

    STORMWATER MANAGEMENT”.

    Mr. Baron stated the amendment is a consistency and accuracy amendment.

    On motion of Mr. Pruski, seconded by Ms. Pickard, Amendment No. 6 was adopted by the

    following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard, Mr. Volke

    Ms. Lacey

    Nay – None

    Amendment No. 7

    On page 1 of the proposed bill, in line 6, strike “a preliminary plan” and substitute

    “subdivision and development applications”; in line 15, after the first semi-colon insert “17-3-

    201(c);”; in line 18, after the first semi-colon, insert “17-3-201(d) to be 17-3-201(c);”; and in line

    22, before “17-3-203(c)” insert “17-3-201(b);”

  • On page 2, in line 8, after the first comma, insert “17-3-201(c),”; in line 11, after the second

    comma, insert “17-3-201(d),”; in line 13, after the first comma, insert “17-3-201(c),”; and after

    line 22, insert:

    “17-3-201. Sketch plan application.

    (b) Contents. A sketch plan shall be on a 24” x 36” sheet at a scale that is no GREATER

    THAN 1” = 40’ AND NO smaller than [[1”=100’]] 1” = 60’ and shall contain all information required by

    the Office of Planning and Zoning, including attachments appearing on the current sketch plan

    [[checklist]] SUBMITTAL AND CHECKLISTS maintained by the Office of Planning and Zoning AND

    DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIONS AND PERMITS. The sketch plan shall show [[the initial location of

    all development, including multi-modal transportation infrastructure, roads, buildings, parking,

    stormwater management, and utilities, identify conservation and environmentally sensitive areas,

    and provide]] ANY other information required by the Office of Planning and Zoning AND

    DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIONS AND PERMITS to clearly identify areas on the site that are suitable

    for development.”.

    Mr. Baron stated the amendment updates Section 17-3-201 to mirror the language

    regarding the development submittal and checklist requirements maintained by OPZ and I&P, as

    required for pulmonary and site development plans.

    On motion of Mr. Pruski, seconded by Ms. Pickard, Amendment No. 7 was adopted by the

    following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard, Mr. Volke

    Ms. Lacey

    Nay – None

    Amendment No. 8

    On page 1 of the proposed bill, in line 6, strike “a preliminary plan” and substitute

    “subdivision and development applications”; in line 15, after the first semi-colon, insert “17-3-

    301(c);”; in line 18, after the first semi-colon, insert “17-3-301(d) and (e) to be 17-3-201(c) and

    (d);”; and in line 22, after the second semi-colon, insert “17-3-301(b);”.

    On page 2, in line 8, after the first comma, insert “17-3-301(c),”; in line 11, after the second

    comma, insert “17-3-301(d) and (e),”; and in line 13, after the first comma, insert “17-3-201(c)

    and (d),”.

    On page 3, after line 17, insert:

    “17-3-301. Final plan application.

    (b) Contents. A final plan shall include all information required to be in a sketch plan. A FINAL PLAN SHALL BE ON A 24” X 36” SHEET AT A SCALE THAT IS NO GREATER THAN 1” = 40’ AND

    NO SMALLER THAN 1” = 60’ AND SHALL CONTAIN ALL INFORMATION INCLUDING ATTACHMENTS

    AS REQUIRED ON THE MOST RECENT FINAL PLAN SUBMITTAL AND CHECKLISTS ON FILE AT THE

    OFFICE OF PLANNING AND ZONING OR DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIONS AND PERMITS. THE FINAL

    PLAN SHALL SHOW ANY INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND ZONING AND

    THE DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIONS AND PERMITS TO CLEARLY DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY OF

    DEVELOPMENT UNDER THIS CODE.”.

  • Mr. Baron stated the amendment clarifies and corrects a part of the bill.

    On motion of Mr. Pruski, seconded by Ms. Pickard, Amendment No. 8 was adopted by the

    following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard, Mr. Volke

    Ms. Lacey

    Nay – None

    Amendment No. 9

    On page 1 of the proposed bill, in line 15, strike “17-4-203(b) and (d)” and substitute “17-4-

    203(d)”; in line 18, after the first semi-colon insert “and”; and strike beginning with the second

    semi-colon in line 18 down through the second “respectively” in line 19.

    On page 2, in line 8, strike “17-4-203(b) and (d)” and substitute “17-4-203(d)”; in line 11,

    strike the first comma and substitute “and”; in lines 11 through 12, strike “and 17-4-203(e) and

    (f),”; in line 13, strike the first comma and substitute “and”; and in line 13, strike “and 17-4-203(d)

    and (e),”.

    On page 7, in line 3, strike “§ 17-4-203(C)” and substitute “§ 17-4-203(D)”; in line 41, strike

    the opening brackets; and strike beginning with the closing brackets in line 46 down through

    “AGENCIES” in line 49.

    On page 8, in line 8, strike”(C)” and substitute “(D)”; in line 9, strike the opening and closing

    brackets and “(E)”; in line 11, strike the opening and closing brackets and “(B)”; in line 18, strike

    the opening and closing brackets, in each instance; in the same line, strike “SUBSECTION”; and in

    line 30, strike “(C)” and substitute “(D)”.

    Ms. Haire, Sponsor, stated the amendment gives citizens a chance to request a meeting.

    The Administration supported the amendment.

    On motion of Mr. Pruski, seconded by Ms. Pickard, Amendment No. 9 was adopted by the

    following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard, Mr. Volke

    Ms. Lacey

    Nay – None

    Amendment No. 10

    On page 5 of the proposed bill, in lines 9 through 10, strike “LEASABLE SPACE” and substitute “ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA”.

    Mr. Volke, Sponsor, stated the term “Additional Floor Area” is easier to define and

    understand.

    The Administration supported the amendment.

  • On motion of Mr. Volke, seconded by Ms. Haire, Amendment No. 10 was adopted by the

    following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard, Mr. Volke

    Ms. Lacey

    Nay – None

    Amendment No. 11

    On page 5 of the proposed bill, in lines 9 through 10, strike “LEASABLE SPACE” and substitute “ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA OF MORE THAN 1,000 SQUARE FEET”.

    Mr. Volke, Sponsor, stated the amendment allows 1,000 square feet to be exempt from the

    requirements of Article 14, Title 4. He stated this will help businesses add small additions easily.

    The Administration stated it did not support this amendment.

    Ms. Bray stated any permit or development application that does not result in a test for

    adequacy of public facilities is already exempt should this bill pass. She stated that if a business

    wanted to add 1,000 square feet, they would not have to go through the site development process.

    Ms. Wilson stated that when adequacy of public facilities is being tested, it comes down to

    the use of the floor area. She gave an example of a beauty salon. She stated the amendment does

    not notify for any cumulative additions.

    Ms. Haire clarified that the use of the square feet is what matters.

    Ms. Wilson agreed.

    On motion of Mr. Volke, seconded by Ms. Fiedler, Amendment No. 11 was defeated by

    the following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Volke, Ms. Lacey

    Nay – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard

    On motion of Mr. Volke, seconded by Ms. Fiedler, the motion to take Amendment Nos.

    12 and 13 as a block was adopted by the following roll call:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard, Mr. Volke

    Ms. Lacey

    Nay – None

    Amendment No. 12

    On page 1 of the proposed bill, in line 8, after the semi-colon insert “requiring that certain

    reports and meeting summaries be sent by email within a certain time period;”; in line 15, strike

    “17-4-203(b) and (d)” and substitute “17-4-203(d)”; in line 18, after the first semi-colon insert

    “and”; strike beginning with the second semi-colon in line 18 down through the second

  • “respectively” in line 19; in line 22, strike “17-3-203(c) and (d)” and substitute “17-3-203(a), (b),

    (c), and (d)”; in line 23, strike “17-3-303(b) and (c)” and substitute “17-3-303(a), (b), and (c)”;

    and in line 24, strike “17-4-203(a) and (c)” and substitute “17-4-203(a), (b), and (c)”.

    On page 2, in line 8, strike “17-4-203(b) and (d)” and substitute “17-4-203(d)”; in line 11,

    strike the first comma and substitute “and”; in lines 11 through 12, strike “and 17-4-203(e) and

    (f),”; in line 13, strike the first comma and substitute “and”; in line 13, strike “and 17-4-203(d) and

    (e),”; and after line 23, insert:

    “(a) Developer submittal; approval or denial. As promptly as possible after the filing of

    a sketch plan, but not later than 15 days prior to the Comment Review Committee meeting as

    required by subsection (b), the Office of Planning and Zoning shall provide the developer, the

    developer’s representative and all reviewing agencies, with a written approval or denial of the

    sketch plan application, including a report of all findings, comments, and recommendations of

    reviewing County agencies, and if applicable a notice of the date, time and location of the

    Comment Review Committee meeting. The written approval or denial will resolve inconsistencies

    and conflicts among agency comments and will offer the applicant direction on how to proceed to

    final plan review, or what issues need to be addressed with a new application for sketch plan

    approval. THE REPORT SHALL BE EMAILED TO THE DEVELOPER AND THE DEVELOPER’S REPRESENTATIVE WITHIN TWO DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE REPORT.

    (b) Comment Review Committee meeting; meeting summary. Within 75 days after the

    filing of a sketch plan, the developer may request that the Office of Planning and Zoning schedule

    at its office, or at a mutually agreed upon location, a meeting of the Development Review Team

    Leader and Office of Planning and Zoning reviewers, representatives of other County reviewing

    agencies, and the developer and its representatives. The Committee will discuss the report

    provided under subsection (a), reviewing agencies’ comments, and any other matters that pertain

    to the submittal and approval of the plan. Within 15 days of the meeting, the Office of Planning

    and Zoning shall confirm in writing to the developer and the developer’s designated

    representatives a summary of the meeting including any recommendations, requirements for

    approval, or other unresolved matters to be addressed before approval may be granted. THE MEETING SUMMARY SHALL BE EMAILED TO THE DEVELOPER AND THE DEVELOPER’S

    REPRESENTATIVE WITHIN TWO DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE SUMMARY. If the meeting summary

    includes findings, comments or recommendations that were not discussed during the Comment

    Review Committee meeting, the developer may request that the Office of Planning and Zoning

    schedule a follow-up meeting of the reviewing agencies to address such issues.”.

    On page 2, in line 29, and on page 3, in line 25, in each instance, after the period insert “THE FURTHER FINDINGS, COMMENTS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS SHALL BE EMAILED TO THE

    DEVELOPER AND THE DEVELOPER’S REPRESENTATIVE WITHIN TWO DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE

    LAST FINDING, COMMENT, OR RECOMMENDATION.”.

    On page 2, in line 29, on page 3, in line 25, on page 7, in line 51, and on page 8, in line 6, in

    each instance, before “mailed” insert opening brackets; and in the same lines, after “mailed” insert

    closing brackets and “EMAILED”.

    On page 3, after line 18, insert:

    “(a) County report; developer re-submittal. As promptly as possible after the filing of

    the application for final plan approval, but no later than 60 days after the filing of the application

  • for final plan approval or 45 days after filing of the application for a minor subdivision or amended

    plat, the Office of Planning and Zoning shall provide to the developer a written report of the

    findings, comments, and recommendations of the County through its reviewing agencies. The

    report shall attempt to resolve inconsistencies or conflicts among the agency comments. THE REPORT SHALL BE EMAILED TO THE DEVELOPER AND THE DEVELOPER’S REPRESENTATIVE

    WITHIN TWO DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE REPORT. Within 10 days after receiving the report, the

    developer may request that the Office of Planning and Zoning schedule a Comment Review

    Committee meeting on the final plan comments in the same manner specified in § 17-3-203(a) and

    (b). Within 60 days after the date the report is [[mailed]] EMAILED, or after the developer receives

    the summary of the Comment Review Committee, the developer shall file a final plan re-submittal

    that addresses the findings, comments, and recommendations contained in the report.”.

    On page 6, in lines 15 and 22, in each instance, strike “MAILED” and substitute “EMAILED”.

    On page 6, in line 14, and on page 7, in line 50, in each instance, after the period insert “THE REPORT SHALL BE EMAILED TO THE DEVELOPER AND THE DEVELOPER’S REPRESENTATIVE

    WITHIN TWO DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE REPORT.”.

    On page 7, in line 3, strike “§ 17-4-203(C)” and substitute “§ 17-4-203(D)”; in line 41, strike the

    opening brackets; and strike beginning with the closing brackets in line 46 down through

    “AGENCIES” in line 49.

    On page 8, in line 8, strike “(C)” and substitute “(D)”; in line 9, strike the opening and closing

    brackets and “(E)”; after line 9, insert:

    “(b) Comment Review Committee meeting; meeting summary. Within 75 days after the

    filing of a site development plan, the developer may request the Office of Planning and Zoning

    schedule at its office, or at a mutually agreed upon location, a meeting of the Development Review

    Team Leader and Office of Planning and Zoning reviewers, representatives of other County

    reviewing agencies, and the developer and its representatives. The Committee will discuss the

    report provided under subsection (a), reviewing agencies’ comments, and any other matters that

    pertain to the submittal and approval of the plan. Within 15 days of the meeting, the Office of

    Planning and Zoning shall confirm in writing to the developer and the developer’s designated

    representatives a summary of the meeting including any recommendations, requirements for

    approval, or other unresolved matters to be addressed before approval may be granted. THE MEETING SUMMARY SHALL BE EMAILED TO THE DEVELOPER AND THE DEVELOPER’S

    REPRESENTATIVE WITHIN TWO DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE SUMMARY. If the meeting summary

    includes findings, comments or recommendations that were not discussed during the Comment

    Review Committee meeting, the developer may request that the Office of Planning and Zoning

    schedule a follow-up meeting of the reviewing agencies to address such issues.”;

    in line 11, strike the opening and closing brackets and “(B)”; in line 18, strike the opening and

    closing brackets, in each instance; in the same line, strike “SUBSECTION”; and in line 30, strike

    “(C)” and substitute “(D)”.

    Amendment No. 13

    On page 1 of the proposed bill, in line 8, after the semi-colon insert “allowing notices of sketch

    and final plan approvals to be emailed to certain parties;”; in line 22, strike “17-3-203(c) and (d)”

  • and substitute “17-3-203(c), (d), and (h)”; and in line 23, strike “17-3-303(b) and (c)” and

    substitute “17-3-303(b), (c), and (g)”.

    On page 3, after line 2, insert:

    “(h) Notice of approval. Within 10 days after receiving notice of an approval of an

    application for sketch plan approval, the developer shall mail, by first class mail, OR EMAIL TO

    THE INDIVIDUALS SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPH (5), a copy of the approval to:

    (1) the president of any community or homeowners’ association of a subdivision

    that is both located within 300 feet of the property and on the list of community associations,

    persons, and organizations maintained in the Office of the County Executive;

    (2) the Office of Planning and Zoning;

    (3) the Councilmember of the Councilmanic District in which the property is

    located and, if the property abuts another Councilmanic district, to that County Councilmember;

    (4) the County Executive; and

    (5) individuals who attended a community meeting held pursuant to § 17-2-107(c)

    and who provided the developer with their name and mailing address or email address for the

    purpose of notice.”;

    and after line 47, insert:

    “(g) Notice of approval. Within 10 days after receiving notice of an approval of an

    application for final plan approval, the developer shall mail, by first class mail, OR EMAIL TO THE

    INDIVIDUALS SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPH (5), a copy of the approval to:

    (1) the president of any community or homeowners’ association of a subdivision

    that is both located within 300 feet of the property and on the list of community associations,

    persons, and organizations maintained in the Office of the County Executive;

    (2) the Office of Planning and Zoning; and

    (3) the Councilmember of the Councilmanic District in which the property is

    located and, if the property abuts another Councilmanic district, to that County Councilmember;

    and

    (4) the County Executive; and

    (5) individuals who attended a community meeting held pursuant to § 17-2-107(c)

    and who provided the developer with their name and mailing address or email address for the

    purpose of notice.”.

    Ms. Fielder stated Amendment No. 12 codifies the electronic transmissions and

    Amendment No. 13 brings the same language for final approval notification.

  • The Administration supported Amendment Nos. 12 and 13.

    On motion of Mr. Volke, seconded by Ms. Pickard, Amendment Nos. 12 and 13 were

    adopted by the following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard, Mr. Volke

    Ms. Lacey

    Nay – None

    The Chairman stated that Bill No. 86-20, as amended, will be heard on December 21, 2020.

    RECESS

    On motion of Mr. Volke, seconded by Mr. Pruski, the Council voted to recess at 9:13 P.M.

    RECOVENE

    The Council reconvened at 9:25 P.M. with all Councilmembers present.

    BILL NO. 93-20

    The Chairman called Bill No. 93-20, An Ordinance concerning: Public Ethics –

    Definitions; and the Administrative Officer read a portion of the title.

    Amendment No. 1

    On pages 1 and 2 of the proposed bill, strike in their entirety the lines beginning with line

    22 on page 1 through line 8 on page 2, inclusive, and substitute:

    “(25) (I) “USUAL AND CUSTOMARY CONSTITUENT SERVICES” MEANS ACTIONS TAKEN BY

    COUNTY COUNCILMEMBERS OR THEIR DESIGNEES ON BEHALF OF AN ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

    RESIDENT OR A BUSINESS ENTITY THAT IS LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OR THAT CONTRIBUTES TO

    THE WELL-BEING OF THE COUNTY, AND INCLUDES:

    1. REQUESTING INFORMATION FROM A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY

    RELATING TO ACTIVE OR POTENTIAL LEGISLATION OR THE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY’S

    PROCESSES, PROCEDURES, OR SIMILAR MATTERS;

    2. PROVIDING OPINIONS RELATING TO INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM A

    GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING OR TAKING LEGISLATIVE ACTION;

    3. SCHEDULING AND PARTICIPATING IN MEETINGS FOR PURPOSES OF

    INQUIRY WITH A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY, WITH OR WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF THE RESIDENT

    OR BUSINESS ENTITY;

    4. INQUIRING ABOUT AN ISSUE ON BEHALF OF A RESIDENT RELATING TO A

    GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY OR A COUNTY EMPLOYEE; AND

    5. WRITING LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION FOR EMPLOYMENT OR

    ADMISSION TO AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION.

  • (II) FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS DEFINITION, A COUNCILMEMBER OR A

    COUNCILMEMBER’S DESIGNEE MAY NOT:

    1. ENGAGE IN AN ACTION IF THE COUNCILMEMBER, A QUALIFYING

    RELATIVE OF THE COUNCILMEMBER, OR A BUSINESS ASSOCIATE OF THE COUNCILMEMBER HAS

    AN INTEREST IN THE MATTER THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL;

    2. ADVOCATE FOR OR REPRESENT A RESIDENT OR BUSINESS ENTITY IN A

    JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING OR COMMUNICATE WITH A DECISION-MAKING

    EMPLOYEE OF A JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY OFF THE RECORD AND OUT OF THE

    PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES;

    3. DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY THREATEN REPRISAL OR PROMISE

    FAVORITISM FOR THE PERFORMANCE OR NONPERFORMANCE OF AN EMPLOYEE’S DUTIES OR

    REQUEST AN EMPLOYEE TO ABUSE OR EXCEED THE DISCRETION AVAILABLE TO THAT EMPLOYEE

    UNDER LAW; OR

    4. EXHIBIT FAVORITISM FOR ONE RESIDENT OVER ANOTHER IN THE SAME

    OR SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES.”.

    Linda Schuett, Council Attorney, stated there was discussion on the definition of “usual”

    and “customary” constituent services. She stated the Ethics Commission created a subcommittee

    to produce a draft of the definition, which was debated and revised.

    Pete Baron, Director, Government Affairs, was accompanied by Lori Blair-Klasmeier,

    Legislative Deputy County Attorney, Office of Law, and Michael Botsaris, Executive Director, Ethics Commission.

    Mr. Botsaris stated the amendment addresses the major concerns of both the Council and

    the Ethics Commission.

    Ms. Blair-Klasmeier stated she was concerned with Charter Section 309, and stated the

    provision language should not conflict with the Charter.

    Ms. Pickard thanked the group for working together to fix this issue.

    Mr. Volke clarified that the Ethics Commission supports the definition and asked if it

    believes the amendment keeps the spirit of the Ethics Law.

    Mr. Botsaris agreed. He stated the Commission believed the compromise draft would be

    acceptable to the State Ethics Commission.

    Ms. Lacey, Co-Sponsor, thanked the Ethics Commission.

    On motion of Ms. Pickard, seconded by Ms. Rodvien, Amendment No. 1 was adopted by

    the following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard, Mr. Volke

    Ms. Lacey

    Nay – None

    The Chairman stated that Bill No. 93-20, as amended, will be heard on December 21, 2020.

  • BILL NO. 94-20 (As Amended)

    The Chairman called for the public hearing on Bill No. 94-20, as amended, An Ordinance

    concerning: Public Safety – Public Nuisances – Prohibition – For the purpose of defining “public

    nuisance”; prohibiting a property from being a public nuisance; providing for the enforcement of

    provisions prohibiting a public nuisance under certain circumstances; providing for sanctions for

    violating the prohibitions against a public nuisance under certain circumstances; and the

    Administrative Officer read the title.

    Mr. Pruski, Sponsor, thanked everyone who helped with this bill.

    Pete Baron, Director, Government Affairs, was accompanied by Major Katie Goodwin,

    Police, and Kelly Kenney, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Office of Law.

    The Administration supported the bill.

    The Administrative Officer stated there were no submissions of written public testimony

    received on Bill No. 94-20.

    The following person spoke on Bill No. 94-20:

    Sarah Price, Maryland Retailers Associations, Annapolis

    There was no one else present who wished to speak, and the hearing was concluded.

    The Chairman called Bill No.94-20, as amended, An Ordinance concerning: Public Safety

    – Public Nuisances – Prohibition; and the Administrative Officer read a portion of the title.

    Mr. Volke asked how the Office of Law would define the term “property” in this bill, such

    as with a complex.

    Ms. Kenney stated property was referred to as property with a tax account number.

    Mr. Volke asked about an apartment complex being one entity with multiple dwelling units.

    Ms. Kenney stated there would be one address point and one tax account number.

    Mr. Volke stated that there was a premise to hold the property owners responsible for

    nuisances. He asked for clarification that if the police answered a call to an address and arrested a

    person who did not reside there, would the property owner still be cited.

    Ms. Kenney stated the trigger was where the arrest was made, not where the crime was

    committed.

    There was further discussion regarding crime committed on a property and who would be

    cited.

    Mr. Volke asked how the citations would be tracked.

  • Major Goodwin stated repeat crimes are tracked, and when multiple repeats are found, then

    the police speak to the owners to see what is happening.

    Mr. Volke asked when the citation would be counted, either when the arrest was made, or

    when the criminal was charged.

    Major Goodwin stated it was a case-by-case scenario.

    Mr. Pruski stated the police do not have to require a case to be considered a nuisance, and

    gave an example of this.

    Ms. Kenney stated the Office of Law reviews all evidence before taking a case to court, as

    would the judge of the case.

    Mr. Volke expressed his concern over the law being enforced in the future. He asked for

    data to support that apartment complexes were the main source of the nuisance calls.

    Major Goodwin stated that hotels would be the main source of calls and there was a weekly

    report for repeat addresses.

    There was further discussion regarding reports and the location of arrests compared to the

    occurrence of crimes.

    Amendment No. 6

    On page 2 of the amended bill, in line 44, after “IF” insert a colon and “(I)”; in line 48, strike the

    period and substitute a semi-colon and “OR”; and after line 48, insert: “(II) THE PROPERTY IS UNDER REGULATORY OVERSIGHT BY A STATE AGENCY THAT HAS

    STAFF ON THE PROPERTY AT ALL TIMES AND ROUTINELY REPORTS ON ALL CRIMES COMMITTED

    ON THE PROPERTY.”

    Ms. Lacey, Sponsor, stated the purpose of the amendment is to have the County involved

    by responding to, but not regulating, the crimes.

    Mr. Volke asked for an example of property that would be under the regulatory oversight

    of a State agency that has staff on property and reports on crimes.

    Ms. Lacey stated Maryland Live Casino fits this example.

    Mr. Volke clarified that if the amendment passes, all other businesses in Anne Arundel

    County and residences, will be subjected to this regulation except Maryland Live Casino.

    Ms. Kenney agreed.

    Ms. Rodvien asked if this would include State run property.

    Ms. Lacey stated this bill is to help stop the crime in any given space.

    Mr. Volke confirmed that the police respond to calls at Maryland Live Casino.

  • Major Goodwin agreed.

    On motion of Ms. Pickard, seconded by Ms. Fiedler, Amendment No. 6 was adopted by

    the following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard, Ms. Lacey

    Nay – Mr. Volke

    Amendment No. 7

    On page 1 of the amended bill, in line 3, after “property” insert “address”.

    On page 2, in line 1, after “PROPERTY” insert “ADDRESS”; and in line 37, after the second

    occurrence of “PROPERTY” insert “ADDRESS”.

    On page 2, in lines 3 and 54, and on page 3, in line 2, in each instance, strike “ON THE

    PROPERTY” and substitute “AT THE ADDRESS”.

    Mr. Volke, Sponsor, stated the amendment clarifies the term “property”.

    The Administration did not support the amendment.

    Ms. Haire asked for clarification on comments for the Fair Housing Act, which were made

    regarding the changing of the term “property”.

    Ms. Kenney stated she had not seen any comments.

    Ms. Pickard stated the 2016 HUD memo addressed the issues of nuisances defined as the

    number of time someone has called 911 from a residence. She stated this bill is about felony acts

    on properties.

    Ms. Rodvien stated the responsibility to provide mitigation should fall on the property

    owner, not the renter.

    Ms. Haire stated she looked at the Fair Housing Act standards of 2016 and offered to send

    an email of it to Ms. Kenney.

    Mr. Volke asked for a copy of the Fair Housing issues with the nuisances listed.

    Mr. Pruski stated the amendment is about high end crime that is continual, not where

    businesses will be closed.

    Mr. Volke clarified that there is not a due process component built into the system.

    On motion of Mr. Volke, seconded by Ms. Fiedler, Amendment No. 7 was defeated by the

    following roll call vote:

    Aye – Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Haire, Mr. Volke

    Nay – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Pickard, Ms. Lacey

  • The Chairman stated that Bill No. 94-20, as amended, will be heard on December 21, 2020.

    BILL NO. 95-20

    The Chairman called for the public hearing on Bill No. 95-20, An Ordinance concerning:

    Construction and Property Maintenance Codes Supplement – Fire Prevention Code Amendments

    – For the purpose of adopting and amending certain construction and property maintenance codes

    related to fire prevention; making certain technical changes to construction and property

    maintenance codes related to fire prevention; and generally relating to construction and property

    maintenance codes; and the Administrative Officer read the title.

    Pete Baron, Director, Government Affairs, was accompanied by Captain Shawn Jones, Fire

    Department, and Lori Blair Klasmeier, Legislative Deputy County Attorney, Office of Law.

    Mr. Baron stated the Office of the Maryland State Fire Marshall adopted the 2018 edition

    of the Fire Code, NFPA1, and NFPA101 Life Safety Code. He stated Anne Arundel County was

    currently enforcing the 2012 edition. He stated this bill is developed to eliminate three

    contradictions, the adoption of the International Building Code; the Anne Arundel County Public

    Works design manual to reduce the number of amendments making the Code easier to use; and to

    avoid amendments that may unfairly impose restrictions on one type of occupancy.

    The Administrative Officer stated there were no submissions of written public testimony

    received on Bill No. 95-20.

    There was no one present who wished to speak, and the hearing was concluded.

    The Chairman called Bill No.95-20, An Ordinance concerning: Construction and Property

    Maintenance Codes Supplement – Fire Prevention Code Amendments; and the Administrative

    Officer read a portion of the title.

    Amendment No. 1

    On page 22 of the proposed bill, in line 13, strike “PLAT” and substitute “PLOT”.

    On page 24, in line 39, strike “16.6.2.1” and substitute “16.6.2.1.2”.

    Mr. Baron stated this is a technical amendment.

    On motion of Ms. Rodvien, seconded by Ms. Pickard, Amendment No. 1 was adopted by

    the following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard, Mr. Volke

    Ms. Lacey

    Nay – None

  • Bill No. 95-20, as amended, was passed by the following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard, Mr. Volke

    Ms. Lacey

    Nay – None

    BILL NO. 96-20

    The Chairman called for the public hearing on Bill No. 96-20, An Ordinance concerning:

    Approval of private disposition of County-owned property formerly known as the Papa John’s

    Farm, located along New Cut Road in Severn Maryland – For the purpose of approving the terms

    and conditions under which the County may convey certain County-owned property to the Board

    of Education of Anne Arundel County; and the Administrative Officer read the title.

    Pete Baron, Director, Government Affairs, was accompanied by Samantha Harris, Real

    Estate Manager, Central Services, Chris Phipps, Director, Department of Public Works, Alex

    Szachnowicz, Chief Operating Officer, Anne Arundel County Public Schools, and Christine

    Neiderer, Assistant County Attorney, Office of Law.

    Mr. Baron stated the County acquired the property known as Papa John’s Farm in 2017 to

    provide for construction by the Board of Education of Old Mill West High School. He stated this

    bill transfers the property from the County to the Board of Education, and is an important step.

    Ms. Pickard stated the bill is important to the feeder systems in the area.

    The Administrative Officer stated there were no submissions of written public testimony

    received on Bill No. 96-20.

    There was no one present who wished to speak, and the hearing was concluded.

    The Chairman called Bill No.96-20, An Ordinance concerning: Approval of private

    disposition of County-owned property formerly known as the Papa John’s Farm, located along

    New Cut Road in Severn Maryland; and the Administrative Officer read a portion of the title.

    Amendment No. 1

    On page 1 of the proposed bill, in line 11, and on page 2, in line 11, in each instance, strike

    “Exhibit A” and substitute “Exhibit A-1”.

    Mr. Baron stated this is a technical amendment correcting a reference and spelling error.

    On motion of Ms. Pickard, seconded by Ms. Rodvien, Amendment No. 1 was adopted by

    the following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard, Mr. Volke

    Ms. Lacey

    Nay – None

  • Bill No. 96-20, as amended, was passed by the following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard, Mr. Volke

    Ms. Lacey

    Nay – None

    BILL NO. 97-20

    The Chairman called for the public hearing on Bill No. 97-20, An Ordinance concerning:

    Boards, Commissions, and Similar Bodies – Veterans Affairs Commission – For the purpose of

    clarifying the name of the Veterans Affairs Commission; establishing the purpose of the Veterans

    Affairs Commission; modifying the composition, terms of members, and meeting procedures of

    the Veterans Affairs Commission; amending the powers and duties of the Veterans Affairs

    Commission; modifying the due date of the annual report; making technical corrections; and

    generally relating to boards, commissions, and similar bodies; and the Administrative Officer read

    the title.

    Pete Baron, Director, Government Affairs, was accompanied by Kaley Schultze, Boards

    and Commissions Coordinator and Legislative Assistant, Office of CE, Pete Smith, Military and

    Veteran Affairs, and Christine Neiderer, Assistant County Attorney, Office of Law.

    Ms. Schultze stated the bill modifies the terms, compositions, and media procedures of the

    commission, strengthens the power and duties of the Commission, and makes corrections. The

    proposed bill allows that the memberships consist of all bodies of all branches of the military, and

    expands the selection organizations and associations. She stated the terms of voting members shall

    become staggered, and the bill adds a clause for attendance and clarifies the duties of the

    Commission.

    Mr. Pruski recognized the importance of the Commission.

    The Administrative Officer stated there were two submissions of written public testimony

    received on Bill No. 97-20, which was shared with the Council and posted on the County Council

    website.

    There was no one present who wished to speak, and the hearing was concluded.

    The Chairman called Bill No.97-20, An Ordinance concerning: Boards, Commissions, and

    Similar Bodies – Veterans Affairs Commission; and the Administrative Officer read a portion of

    the title.

    Amendment No. 1

    On page 1 of the proposed bill, in lines 11, 12, 18, 23, and 24, in each instance, strike “13-

    ” and substitute “3-”.

    Ms. Schultze stated the amendment corrects errors in the bill.

  • On motion of Mr. Pruski, seconded by Ms. Pickard, Amendment No. 1 was adopted by the

    following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard, Mr. Volke

    Ms. Lacey

    Nay – None

    Amendment No. 2

    On page 2 of the proposed bill, in line 44, after the closing brackets insert “SELECTED BY

    THE VOTING MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION”; and in line 45, before and after “selected” insert

    opening and closing brackets.

    Mr. Volke, Sponsor, stated this amendment comes from multiple amendments.

    The Administration supported the amendment.

    On motion of Mr. Volke, seconded by Ms. Fiedler, Amendment No. 2 was adopted by the

    following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard, Mr. Volke

    Ms. Lacey

    Nay – None

    Amendment No. 3

    On page 3 of the proposed bill, in line 28, strike “AND”; and in line 30, after “AMERICA”

    insert “; AND” and:

    “(XVIII) OTHER SIMILAR ORGANIZATIONS THAT SUPPORT VETERANS AND THEIR

    FAMILIES”.

    Mr. Volke, Sponsor, stated the amendment suggests an encompassing, catch-all list.

    The Administration supported the amendment.

    On motion of Mr. Volke, seconded by Ms. Fiedler, Amendment No. 3 was adopted by the

    following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard, Mr. Volke

    Ms. Lacey

    Nay – None

    Amendment No. 4

    On page 3 of the proposed bill, in line 42, strike “MEMBERS SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE.”.

    Mr. Volke, Sponsor, stated the intention of this amendment is to take out the permissive

    service, and provide the terms as specified.

  • The Administrative supported the amendment.

    On motion of Mr. Volke, seconded by Ms. Haire, Amendment No. 4 was adopted by the

    following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard, Mr. Volke

    Ms. Lacey

    Nay – None

    The Chairman stated that Bill No. 97-20, as amended, will be heard on December 21, 2020.

    RECESS

    On motion of Ms. Rodvien, seconded by Ms. Pickard, the Council voted to recess at 10:55

    P.M.

    RECOVENE

    The Council reconvened at 11:05 P.M. with all Councilmembers present.

    BILL NO. 98-20

    The Chairman called for the public hearing on Bill No. 98-20, An Ordinance concerning:

    Public Works – Utilities – Mayo Water Reclamation Subdistrict – For the purpose of eliminating

    certain special charges and provisions for the Mayo Water Reclamation Subdistrict; requiring that

    properties within the Mayo Water Reclamation Subdistrict be subject to the same environmental

    protection fee and capital facility connection charges as other properties in the County; providing

    that properties within the Mayo Water Reclamation Subdistrict shall no longer be subject to a

    service availability charge and that any unpaid or deferred capital facility connection charges shall

    remain due and payable; making certain technical changes; and generally relating to public works;

    and the Administrative Officer read the title.

    Pete Baron, Director, Government Affairs, was accompanied by Chris Phipps, Director,

    Department of Public Works, Kim Cluney, DPW, Karin McQuade, Controller, Office of Finance,

    and Kelly Kenney, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Office of Law.

    Mr. Baron stated Bill No. 63-87 created the Mayo Water Reclamation Subdistrict to

    establish specific fees and charges to recover the initial construction cost to provide public sewer

    to the Mayo District. He stated the original construction included the sand filter and wetland

    treatment system of the Mayo Water Reclamation Facility, and all the collection conveyance

    piping and pumping stations to service the communities. He stated that in 2018 the Mayo

    Reclamation Facility was decommissioned and replaced with a sewer forced main, and there was

    no longer a need for the Mayo Proclamation Subdistrict now that the sewage was treated like all

    other communities. He stated this bill requires all properties to pay the same environmental fee

    paid by all other properties connected to the County wastewater system.

    Ms. Haire stated that the bill increases the fees and costs of the customers on the Mayo

    Peninsula, and she cannot find where the County notified the residents of the increases. She gave

    an example of a petition process where all changes are transparent.

  • Mr. Phipps stated there was a past Mayo Citizens Advisory Committee formed to help

    make the decisions of the Mayo Water Reclamation Facility. He stated the fees and increases were

    not foreseen at the time of the Committee, and this was the time for notification.

    Mr. Pruski asked why it costs more for facilities on peninsulas and why it was cost

    prohibitive.

    Mr. Phipps stated the open system was natural, allowing funding from the EPA Clean

    Water Act, and the construction cost index is 5% per year. He stated the process was costly to pipe

    it over water compared to piping it to Annapolis.

    Mr. Volke asked if and when the rate payers in Mayo would be given notice this would

    happen.

    Mr. Phipps stated it would be no different than any notice of a rate change. He stated the

    rate would not be assessed until July 1st, giving plenty of time for notification.

    Mr. Volke asked if the notice has been sent out yet.

    Mr. Phipps stated this meeting is an opportunity to announce changes, along with

    contacting the government officials of the areas.

    Linda Schuett, Council Attorney, stated some fees in the Code are charged without

    notification.

    Ms. Haire stated Mayo pays for wastewater service and should be notified of the increased

    surcharge fees.

    Mr. Phipps explained that the environmental protection fee of the original system was not

    assessed. He stated that to bring the Mayo system up to regulatory standards and rebuild the

    infrastructure it would cost $25.8 million, with the service being $1.5 million per year. He stated

    the EPF revenue raised through the Mayo customers would generate $295,000 per year, incurring

    a debt service of $1.5 million per year.

    Ms. Rodvien asked what the average monthly cost for a house would be.

    Mr. Phipps stated Mayo is not metered and uses a flat rate sewer charge of $69.58 quarterly

    bill, including $20.85 quarterly assessment fee.

    Ms. Haire asked if the yearly debt service of $1.5 million was a bond service.

    Mr. Phipps confirmed.

    Mr. Volke stated the Auditor’s Blue Note indicated that the flat wastewater usage rate is

    $68.58 per quarter.

    Mr. Phipps stated the $69.58 is over three months.

    Ms. Haire clarified the surcharge would add 30% onto each quarterly bill.

  • Mr. Volke asked about the timing of bringing the bill to the Council now, and why it took

    so long.

    Mr. Phipps stated the project was still open due to decommissioning the facility, which

    incurs expenses, and there was no perfect time for moving forward with this.

    Ms. Pickard asked if the increase would happen after July 1st.

    Mr. Phipps confirmed.

    Ms. Pickard stated that would be plenty of notification.

    Mr. Pruski stated there would be more wastewater capacity needed as communities

    develop.

    The Administrative Officer stated there were no submissions of written public testimony

    received on Bill No. 98-20.

    There was no one present who wished to speak, and the hearing was concluded.

    The Chairman called Bill No.98-20, An Ordinance concerning: Public Works – Utilities –

    Mayo Water Reclamation Subdistrict; and the Administrative Officer read a portion of the title.

    Bill No. 98-20 was passed by the following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Pickard, Ms. Lacey

    Nay – Ms. Haire, Mr. Volke

    BILL NO. 99-20

    The Chairman called for the public hearing on Bill No. 99-20, An Ordinance concerning:

    Zoning – Glen Burnie Sustainable Community Overlay Area – Uses – For the purpose of clarifying

    the application of the uses allowed within the Glen Burnie Sustainable Community Overlay Area;

    and generally relating to zoning; and the Administrative Officer read the title.

    Ms. Pickard, Sponsor, stated this is a follow-up bill to Bill No. 64-20 which created the

    Glen Burnie Sustainable Community Overlay. She stated this bill provides a clarification of how

    the flexibility of uses is applied under the overlay.

    Pete Baron, Director, Government Affairs, was accompanied by Lynn Miller, Assistant

    Planning and Zoning Officer, and Lori Blair Klasmeier, Legislative Deputy County Attorney,

    Office of Law.

    The Administration supported the bill.

    Mr. Baron stated this bill clarifies the intent of Bill No. 64-20.

    The Administrative Officer stated there were no submissions of written public testimony

    received on Bill No. 99-20.

  • There was no one present who wished to speak, and the hearing was concluded.

    The Chairman called Bill No.99-20, An Ordinance concerning: Zoning – Glen Burnie

    Sustainable Community Overlay Area – Uses; and the Administrative Officer read a portion of the

    title.

    Bill No. 99-20 was passed by the following roll call vote:

    Aye – Mr. Pruski, Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Pickard, Mr. Volke

    Ms. Lacey

    Nay – None

    ADJORNMENT

    There being no further business, on motion of Ms. Rodvien, seconded by Ms. Pickard, the

    meeting adjourned at 11:37 P.M.

    The Chairman stated that the next Council meeting will be on Monday, December 21, 2020.

    Respectfully submitted,

    /s/ Anna Macaulay

    by Anna Macaulay

    /s/ JoAnne Gray

    for JoAnne Gray

    Administrative Officer