agenda county council of anne arundel ......agenda county council of anne arundel county, maryland...

AGENDA

COUNTY COUNCIL OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND

Virtual County Council Meeting

Legislative Session 2020, Legislative Day No. 28

October 5, 2020 - 6:00 P.M.

A. Invocation (Rodvien)

B. Pledge of Allegiance

C. Open Meetings Statement

D. Ethics Statement

E. Invitation to Audience

F. Announcement of Items not Appearing on Agenda

G. Preliminary Motion

H. Approval of Minutes

September 21, 2020 – Legislative Day No. 27

I. Introduction of Bills

BILL NO. 84-20 – AN ORDINANCE concerning: Current Expense Budget – Board of

Education –Supplementary Appropriations – FOR the purpose of making

supplementary appropriations from unanticipated revenues to the Local Education Fund

for the current fiscal year; and generally relating to supplementary appropriations to the

current expense budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2021.

by Ms. Pickard, Chair

(by request of the County Executive)

BILL NO. 85-20 – AN ORDINANCE concerning: Public Works – Utilities – Water and

Wastewater System Connections and Charges – FOR the purpose of eliminating the

water and wastewater user connection charge; requiring a licensed utility contractor to

submit and maintain a security with the Department; requiring work performed under a

tap connection permit be subject to a warranty and security; adding a certain definition;

eliminating the option to connect to the water or wastewater system under a private

contract administered by the Department; establishing connection methods for water

and wastewater system connections; requiring a tap connection permit and payment of a

permit fee; providing for exceptions to the application of this Ordinance; and generally

relating to public works.



BILL NO. 86-20 – AN ORDINANCE concerning: Subdivision and Development –

Subdivision – Site Development – Plan Review Timelines and Requirements – FOR the

purpose of amending the time periods for certain development applications

re-submittals; amending the applicability of Site Development Plans and providing for

exemptions; amending the contents required in a preliminary plan; amending the

process for delivering comments to developers throughout the site development

approval process; amending the scope and applicability of the Site Development Plan

requirements; amending the contents of the Site Development Plan application;

requiring reservation of land for public facilities during the Site Development Plan

process; extending the time requirements for duration of approval for adequate public

Agenda

October 5, 2020

facility testing for certain subdivisions, preliminary plans or site development plans;

and generally relating to subdivision and development.



BILL NO. 87-20 – AN ORDINANCE concerning: Public Safety and Zoning – Pet Care

Businesses and Commercial Kennels – FOR the purpose of amending the definition of

“pet care business” to include the training of pets; amending the definition of

“commercial kennels” to include the training of dogs, cats, or other domesticated

animals; and generally relating to public safety and zoning.

by Ms. Fiedler

BILL NO. 88-20 – AN ORDINANCE concerning: Zoning – Identification Signs on

Automobile Gasoline Station Canopies – FOR the purpose of allowing a certain number

and size of identification signs on canopies at automobile gasoline stations located in

business complexes and commercial and industrial districts; and generally relating to

zoning.

by Ms. Haire

J. Introduction of Resolutions

RESOLUTION NO. 40-20 – RESOLUTION approving the nomination of a member to the

Anne Arundel County Human Relations Commission



and Ms. Pickard

RESOLUTION NO. 41-20 – RESOLUTION recognizing Monday, October 12, 2020 as

Indigenous Peoples’ Day in Anne Arundel County

by Ms. Rodvien

K. Public Hearings and Call of Bills for Final Reading and/or Vote

BILL NO. 57-20 (As Amended) – AN ORDINANCE concerning: Licensing and Zoning –

Manufactured Mobile Homes Located outside a Mobile Home Park – FOR the purpose

of requiring a license for space outside of a mobile home park on which a manufactured

home is located; allowing a mobile home on certain size lots located outside of a

mobile home park as a permitted use in RA residential districts; and generally relating

to licensing and zoning.

by Mr. Pruski

BILL NO. 61-20 (As Amended) – AN ORDINANCE concerning: Public Works – Utilities -

Backflow Preventers – Water and Wastewater – FOR the purpose of replacing the term

“backflow prevention device” with “backflow preventer”; requiring repair or

replacement of a backflow preventer in certain situations; requiring payment of a

service charge for restoration of water service after it is turned off for an improperly

functioning backflow preventer; modifying the timeframe for the replacement of a

water meter on a private water source; allowing for back billing for water or wastewater

charges for a period not to exceed three years for any billings that are incorrect or not

made; allowing a waiver of water or wastewater usage bills for any property that

becomes uninhabitable or certain unoccupied residential property; increasing the

Agenda

October 5, 2020

amount of reimbursement to a residential customer for property damage as a result of a

sewer system backup; establishing a charge for a meter test; and generally relating to

public works.



BILL NO. 62-20 (As Amended) – AN ORDINANCE concerning: Public Safety – Off-the-

Road Motorcycles – FOR the purpose of defining “off-the-road motorcycle”;

prohibiting off-the-road motorcycles within 300 feet of a dwelling unless permission is

given; allowing sanctions for a violation; and generally relating to public safety.

by Mr. Pruski

BILL NO. 63-20 (As Amended) – AN ORDINANCE concerning: Public Safety –

Electronic Smoking Devices in Restaurants – Prohibition - FOR the purpose of

prohibiting the use of electronic smoking devices in restaurants; defining certain terms;

allowing sanctions for violations; and generally relating to public safety.

AN ORDINANCE concerning: Licenses and Registrations – Electronic Smoking

Devices in Restaurants – Indoor Prohibition - FOR the purpose of prohibiting the use of

electronic smoking devices indoors in restaurants; defining certain terms; providing for

a penalty for violations; and generally relating to licenses and registrations.

by Mr. Pruski

BILL NO. 66-20 – AN ORDINANCE concerning: Current Expense Budget –

Supplementary Appropriations – Capital Budget and Program – Fund Transfer – FOR

the purpose of making supplementary appropriations from unanticipated revenues to

certain offices, departments, institutions, boards, commissions or other agencies in the

general fund and to certain special funds of the County for the current fiscal year;

amending the Capital Budget by transferring certain appropriations of funds between

the Pasadena Rd Improvements, Route 2 Improvements, and MD 214 & Loch Haven

Road capital projects; and generally relating to making supplementary appropriations of

funds to the current expense budget and transferring funds between projects in the

Capital Budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2021.



BILL NO. 67-20 – AN ORDINANCE concerning: Floodplain Management, Erosion and

Sediment Control, and Stormwater Management – Stormwater Management – FOR the

purpose of increasing the time period before the expiration of approved grading

permits; requiring that a completed project meet all County as-built submittal

requirements; requiring a certain warranty for best management practices installed by a

homeowner’s association; adding the conditions for warranty, security, and inspection

of best management practices owned or maintained by a homeowner’s association;

requiring repair, restoration, and maintenance of private stormwater management

practices; providing for the application of this Ordinance; providing for a delayed

effective date; and generally relating to floodplain management, erosion and sediment

control, and stormwater management.



and Ms. Pickard

Agenda

October 5, 2020

BILL NO. 68-20 – AN ORDINANCE concerning: Finance, Taxation, and Budget –

Admission and Amusement Tax – Zoning – Farm Alcohol Production Facility – FOR

the purpose of exempting a farm alcohol production facility from the admission and

amusement tax; defining “farm alcohol production facility”; establishing the parking

requirements for a farm alcohol production facility; allowing a farm alcohol production

facility as a conditional use in RA, RLD, and R1 residential districts; establishing the

conditional use requirements for a farm alcohol production facility; repealing certain

provisions relating to farm breweries and wineries; and generally relating to finance,

taxation, and budget and zoning.



BILL NO. 69-20 (Amendments Proposed) – 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 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 in RA,

RLD, and R1 residential districts; adding the conditional use requirements for “9 to 15

annual farm or agricultural heritage site special events”; 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”; and generally relating to zoning.



BILL NO. 70-20 – AN ORDINANCE concerning: Pensions – Employees’ Retirement Plan

– Fire Service Retirement Plan – Police Service Retirement Plan - Detention Officers’

and Deputy Sheriffs’ Retirement Plan – Disability Pensions – FOR the purpose of

modifying the conditions for a service-connected disability retirement pension in the

Employees’ Retirement Plan; modifying the limitations on continued eligibility for a

service-connected disability retirement pension in the Employees’ Retirement Plan;

modifying the definition of “total and permanent disability” in the Fire Service

Retirement Plan, the Police Service Retirement Plan, and the Detention Officers’ and

Deputy Sheriffs’ Retirement Plan; modifying the conditions for a non-duty related

disability retirement pension in the Fire Service Retirement Plan, the Police Service

Retirement Plan, and the Detention Officers’ and Deputy Sheriffs’ Retirement Plan;

modifying the conditions for disqualification for a disability retirement pension in the

Fire Service Retirement Plan, the Police Service Retirement Plan, and the Detention

Officers’ and Deputy Sheriffs’ Retirement Plan; making certain technical changes; and

generally relating to pensions.



and Mr. Pruski and Ms. Pickard

BILL NO. 71-20 – AN ORDINANCE concerning: Personnel – Employee Relations –

Limitations on Joining Employee Organizations – FOR the purpose of adding certain

classifications to the definition of “Uniformed Public Safety Exclusive Representative”;

Agenda

October 5, 2020

allowing certain management employees in the Police Department to join employee

organizations representing managed employees; and generally relating to personnel.



and Mr. Pruski, Ms. Rodvien, and Ms. Pickard

BILL NO. 72-20 (Amendments Proposed) – AN ORDINANCE concerning: Licenses and

Registrations – Unattended Donation Boxes – FOR the purpose of establishing

registration requirements for unattended donation boxes in the County; defining certain

terms; requiring that unattended donation boxes be registered; adding the requirements

for the registration and the renewal of registrations; establishing standards for

maintenance of unattended donation boxes; and generally relating to licenses and

registrations.

by Mr. Volke

BILL NO. 73-20 – AN ORDINANCE concerning: Zoning – Chickens and Ducks in

Residential Districts – FOR the purpose of amending the minimum distance a coop or

enclosure for chickens or ducks is allowed to be located from a dwelling on a lot less

than 40,000 square feet; and generally relating to zoning.

by Ms. Haire

BILL NO. 74-20 – AN ORDINANCE concerning: Finance, Taxation, and Budget – Real

Property Taxes – Public Safety Officers Property Tax Credit – FOR the purpose of

amending a certain deadline for applying for the public safety officers’ property tax

credit; providing for the termination of this Ordinance; and generally relating to the

public safety officers’ property tax credit.

by Ms. Haire

L. Other Business

M. Adjourn

WATCH OR LISTEN TO THE COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING

The County Council Meeting can be watched on local cable channels or via Arundel

TV Live! To find a list of channels or to access Arundel TV Live, visit

www.aacounty.org/services-and-programs/government-television.

You may listen to the October 5, 2020 by dialing any one of the following telephone

numbers and entering the appropriate ID and password when prompted:

+1 301 715 8592

+1 470 381 2552

+1 470 250 9358

+1 669 900 6833

+1 669 219 2599

888 475 4499 (Toll Free)

833 548 0276 (Toll Free)

ID: 933 9664 4344

Passcode: 42053144

http://www.aacounty.org/services-and-programs/government-television


Minutes of

Virtual Legislative Session 2020, Legislative Day No. 27

September 21, 2020 – 6:00 P.M.

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

gave the Invocation, followed by 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 that 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.” [Gen’l. Prov. Art., § 3-102(c)]. 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 Governor’s

various Executive Orders 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, and allowing written public comments to the legislation be filed with

the Clerk and considered by the Council. The County Office of Law has opined that the public

access provided by this technology makes this virtual meeting reasonably accessible to the public

and therefore complies with the Open Meetings Act.

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.

SUSPENSION OF RULES

On motion of Ms. Lacey, seconded by Ms. Rodvien, the Council voted to suspend Rules

3-103, 3-105, and 3-106 for this meeting by the following roll call vote:

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

Nay – Mr. Volke

INVITATION TO AUDIENCE

Laura Corby, Assistant Administration Officer, explained to the public how to use and

access Zoom meetings.

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

received, 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.

ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA

Mr. Volke stated that he made an email request on September 15 to have the Health Officer,

Dr. Kalyararaman, attend this meeting to continue the discussion of reopening County offices. He

stated that he would like to have this added to the agenda.

Ms. Pickard stated that Dr. Kalyararaman is on the agenda to discuss the potential

resolutions that are being introduced this evening, but is not on the agenda or prepared to speak

after the lengthy discussion at the work session, where he addressed all of the questions that were

asked.

Mr. Volke stated that he would like to add at the end of the agenda, the opportunity to have

a discussion with Dr. Kalyararaman about the status of COVID-19 and the regulations in the

County, as well as opening the reopening revisions and the results of the latest work group meeting.

There was further discussion regarding the procedures in adding additional items to the

agenda after the meeting has been called to order.

On motion of Mr. Volke, seconded by Ms. Haire, the motion to suspend the rules to add

discussion with Dr. Kalyararaman, Health Officer regarding COVID-related issues to the agenda

at the end of the meeting, was defeated by the following roll call vote:

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

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

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 September 8, 2020

were approved as presented.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BILL NO. 75-20 – AN ORDINANCE concerning: Conveyance of Surplus Property –

Unimproved County-Owned Property near Furnace Branch Road in Glen Burnie,

Maryland – FOR the purpose of approving the terms and conditions of the conveyance

of certain County-owned property comprised of 11,865 square feet or 0.27 of an acre of

land, more or less, located near Furnace Branch Road in Glen Burnie, Maryland.



BILL NO. 76-20 – AN ORDINANCE concerning: Subdivision and Development –

Adequate Public School Facilities – School Utilization Chart – FOR the purpose of

approving the 2022 School Utilization Chart prepared by the Planning and Zoning

Officer.



BILL NO. 77-20 – AN ORDINANCE concerning: Planning and Development – Master Plan

for Water Supply and Sewerage Systems – FOR the purpose of amending the Master

Plan for Water Supply and Sewerage Systems, 2017 to alter a certain map; and generally

relating to the Master Plan for Water Supply and Sewerage Systems.



BILL NO. 78-20 – AN ORDINANCE concerning: Subdivision and Development – Fees and

Security – Use of Development Impact Fee Funds – FOR the purpose of allowing

development impact fees to be used to fund certain studies and analyses; and generally

relating to subdivision and development.



BILL NO. 79-20 – AN ORDINANCE concerning: Public Works – Utilities – Extension of

Public Water and Wastewater Systems – FOR the purpose of establishing a process for

the majority of owners of real property to petition the County to establish water or

wastewater facilities or to take over private water or wastewater facilities; defining

certain terms; establishing a procedure for the Department upon receipt of a petition;

requiring a petition project to be self-sustaining in certain circumstances and requiring a

majority of owners to vote in favor of the required rate of assessment; establishing a

connection procedure for properties; making it a civil offense and establishing penalties

for unlawful connections to the County’s water or wastewater system; permitting

certain properties to connect to the County’s water or wastewater system; and generally

relating to public works.



and Ms. Haire

BILL NO. 80-20 – AN ORDINANCE concerning: Public Works – Utilities – Assessments

– Water and Wastewater Facilities – FOR the purpose of authorizing assessments to

recover the County’s cost of constructing certain water and wastewater facilities;

defining certain terms; providing for the calculation, imposition, payment, and collection

of assessments to recover the County’s cost of constructing water and wastewater

facilities; establishing a method of determining the assessable amount for a lot; requiring

the payment and forfeiture of certain assessments upon development; requiring notice of

an assessment and opportunity to appeal an assessment; establishing a rate for assessment

for properties connecting to capital projects extending water or wastewater facilities;

prohibiting the application of this Ordinance to certain properties; and generally relating

to public works.

by Ms. Haire

BILL NO. 81-20 – AN ORDINANCE concerning: Zoning – Home Occupations – Cottage

Food Businesses – FOR the purpose of allowing cottage food businesses as home

occupations; defining certain terms; and generally relating to zoning.

by Ms. Rodvien

BILL NO. 82-20 – AN ORDINANCE concerning: Zoning – Requirements for Special

Exception Uses – Indoor Rifle, Pistol, Skeet, and Archery Ranges – FOR the purpose of

decreasing the distance an indoor rifle, pistol, skeet, or archery range may be located

from a residentially zoned property; requiring vehicular access to an indoor rifle, pistol,

skeet, or archery range be located a certain distance from road intersections; and

generally relating to zoning.

by Ms. Fiedler and Mr. Volke

BILL NO. 83-20 – AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE concerning: Proclamation of Civil

Emergency in Anne Arundel County – Termination – FOR the purpose of terminating

the extension of the proclamation of a civil emergency established by Bill No. 24-20; and

making this Ordinance an emergency measure.

by Mr. Volke

INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS

RESOLUTION NO. 36-20 – RESOLUTION concerning: approving the determination of

certain unimproved County-owned property being part of Old Admiral Court in

Annapolis, Maryland (located between properties known as 711 Bestgate Road and 713

Bestgate Road in Annapolis, Maryland) as surplus property



RESOLUTION NO. 37-20 – RESOLUTION approving the application of Eleanor R. King

to sell an agricultural land preservation easement to the Maryland Agricultural Land

Preservation Foundation on 67.5 acres in Davidsonville, Maryland



RESOLUTION NO. 38-20 – RESOLUTION urging the County Executive to lift certain

indoor restrictions imposed on restaurants and bars in Anne Arundel County

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

RESOLUTION NO. 39-20 – RESOLUTION requesting the Anne Arundel County

Department of Health to formulate guidance to safely reopen elementary schools and

special education for in-person learning in accordance with guidance set forth by the

State Board of Education

by Ms. Haire

SUSPENSION OF RULES TO VOTE

On motion of Ms. Fiedler, seconded by Ms. Haire, the Council voted to suspend the rules

to vote on Resolution Nos. 38-20 and 39-20 later in the meeting, by the following roll call vote:

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

Ms. Pickard

Nay – None

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

BILL NO. 55-20 (As Amended)

The Chairman called for the public hearing on Bill No. 55-20, as amended, An Ordinance

concerning: Pensions – Deferred Retirement Option Program – Term of Participation Period –

Limitations on Interest – For the purpose of adding a certain classification to and removing certain

classifications from the requirement of approval for the sixth year of DROP participation; allowing

Battalion Chiefs to earn interest on their accounts during the sixth year of a DROP participation;

establishing the rate of interest for the sixth year of the DROP for Fire Battalion Chiefs; providing

for the retroactive effect of this ordinance; and generally relating to pensions; and the

Administrative Officer read the title.

Pete Baron, Director, Government Affairs, was accompanied by Sherri Dickerson,

Personnel Officer, Anne Budowski, Assistant Personnel Officer, Steven Theroux, Budget Office,

Fire Chief Trisha Wolford, and Lori Blair Klasmeier, Deputy County Attorney, Office of Law.

Mr. Baron stated that the Council adopted an amendment for Bill No. 55-20 at the last

Council meeting, which removed certain classifications from the requirement of approval for the

sixth year of DROP participation, and to allow Battalion Chiefs to earn interest on their accounts

during the sixth year of a DROP participation period. He asked for the Council’s approval of Bill

No. 55-20, as amended.

Ms. Haire asked the Administration if the County uses the established interest rate across

the board.

Mr. Baron answered affirmatively.

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

received on Bill No. 55-20, as amended.


The Chairman called Bill No. 55-20, as amended, An Ordinance concerning: Pensions –

Deferred Retirement Option Program – Term of Participation Period – Limitations on Interest;

and the Administrative Officer read a portion of the title.

Bill No. 55-20, as amended, was passed by the following roll call vote:

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

Ms. Pickard

Nay – None

BILL NO. 56-20 (As Amended)

The Chairman called for the public hearing on Bill No. 56-20, as amended, An Ordinance

concerning: Purchasing – Acquisition of Real Property by Gift – For the purpose of approving

acceptance of a gift of real property consisting of 0.826 acres of land, more or less, from Philip I.

Hazen; and the Administrative Officer read the title.

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

Estate Manager, Central Services, and Christine Neiderer, Assistant County Attorney, Office of

Law.

Mr. Baron stated that Bill No. 56-20 was discussed at the last Council meeting. The Council

adopted two amendments, a clarifying and a technical amendment. A constituent in the County

wants to donate .83 acres of undeveloped and forested property within the critical area near Herring

Bay, to the County. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was completed in February 2020

which identified no recognized hazards on the parcel and future maintenance costs for the property

should be minimal. The Budget Officer has reviewed and determined that there is no fiscal impact.

The Council has been provided a map of the surrounding area as part the legislative packet. If the

Council approves Bill No. 56-20, the Real Estate Division will proceed with receiving this property

as a gift, according to the requirements. Mr. Baron asked for the Council to pass Bill No. 56-20.

Mr. Volke asked the Administration what are the property taxes that are currently being

paid to the County by the owner of the parcel.

Ms. Harris stated that she did not know that number but would get that information for Mr.

Volke.

Ms. Neiderer stated that the County Auditor’s letter stated that the most recent County tax

bill for this property was approximately two hundred dollars. Mr. Volke stated that obviously that

is money that the County will no longer receive and he understands that since it is not a significant

amount of money that is why the Budget Officer said there is no significant fiscal impact.

Mr. Volke asked the Administration what forestation the County is expecting to do on this

property. He stated that in the legislative summary it noted that 18,000 square feet of Critical Area

of forest mitigation for future County projects. He said that given what the map shows of the area

and the foresting that is already there, it doesn’t appear that there could be 18,000 square feet. He

asked if it was possible to do forest mitigation of 18,000 square feet.

Mr. Baron stated that in the original draft of the bill there was an amendment that removed

the 18,000 square feet, because that will be determined at the time of mitigation as to what the

exact amount will be.

There was further discussion between the Council and the Administration regarding the

use of the parcel.


received on Bill No. 56-20, as amended.


The Chairman called Bill No. 56-20, An Ordinance concerning: Purchasing – Acquisition

of Real Property by Gift; and the Administrative Officer read a portion of the title.

Bill No. 56-20, as amended, was passed by the following roll call vote:


Ms. Pickard

Nay – None

BILL NO. 57-20

The Chairman called Bill No. 57-20, An Ordinance concerning: Licensing and Zoning –

Manufactured Mobile Homes Located outside a Mobile Home; and the Administrative Officer

read a portion of the title.

Mr. Pruski, Sponsor, stated that Bill No. 57-20 had been discussed at the work session and

during the public hearing. He reiterated that a constituent had reached out to him because of an

issue he had with a manufactured mobile home. He stated that there will be an amendment which

will limit the scope that this bill will have.

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

Chief Administrative Officer, Land Use, Planning & Zoning, Greg Africa, Director, Inspection &

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

Mr. Baron stated that the Administration would reserve comment until after the

amendment.

Amendment No. 1

On page 1 of the proposed bill, in line 5, after “mobile home” insert “on certain size lots”.

On page 2, after line 22, in the first column and second row of the chart, after “PARK” insert “ON A CONTIGUOUS LOT OF AT LEAST 60 ACRES”.

Mr. Pruski, Sponsor, stated that Amendment No. 1 addresses concerns that

Councilmembers had regarding this bill. He asked for the Council’s support.

Ms. Haire thanked Mr. Pruski for the amendment. She stated that there were a number of

concerns about the potential impact and the number of parcels that this bill might affect. By raising

the threshold to the 60 acre level it will help Mr. Pruski’s constituent, but it does not have any

untended consequences as the bill had originally. She stated that she would support Amendment

No. 1.

Ms. Pickard stated that a couple of people pointed out that there are at least 1,100 parcels

in RA Zoning and the concern was that there would eventually be 1,100 mobile homes in South

County. She asked Ms. Rhodes if each of these parcels could have a dwelling of some kind, and

not necessarily mobile homes.

Ms. Rhodes stated that if they meet all of the zoning requirements and all of the

requirements for building permits in order to obtain a certificate of occupancy, they would be able

to build a brick and mortar home.

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

Council by the following roll call vote:


Ms. Pickard

Nay – None

The Chairman stated that Bill No. 57-20, as amended, will be heard on Monday, October

5, 2020.

BILL NO. 61-20

The Chairman called Bill No. 61-20, An Ordinance concerning: Public Works – Utilities;

and the Administrative Officer read a portion of the title.

Pete Baron, Director, Government Affairs, was accompanied by Karen Henry, Assistant

Director, and Ben Thompson, Acting Utility Administrator, Department of Public Works, Karin

McQuade, Controller, Finance Office, and Kelly Kenney, Senior Assistant County Attorney,

Office of Law.

Mr. Baron stated that the purpose of Bill No. 61-20 is to make corrections and changes to

various provisions in Article 13 pertaining to utilities and water, and wastewater procedures. The

bill provides clarifying language for backflow prevention which is vital and necessary to protect

the County’s drinking water supply. Improper functioning or a lack of a backflow preventer would

cause tainted liquids to backflow into the water supply and cause contamination of the County’s

drinking water. Other changes and provisions include the time frame for replacement of a water

meter on a private water source from every ten years to fifteen years; deleting language that

authorizes back billing for water or wastewater usage only where there is an omission or mistake

of a customer, and allow back billing for a period not to exceed three years for any billing that is

incorrect or not made; revising the provisions allowing for waivers of water and wastewater usage

bills for uninhabitable and certain unoccupied properties; increasing the amount that DPW may

reimburse a residential customer for property damage as a result of a sewer system backup into a

customer’s home; requiring that whenever water service is turned off for a lack of a backflow

preventer, a service charge be applied in order to restore the water service after the backflow

preventer is repaired or replaced, and a charge for a meter test is also added.

Mr. Baron said it is his understanding that there are several amendments being introduced,

and the Administration would be happy to answer any questions on the bill or at the appropriate

time with the amendments.

Amendment No. 1

On page 1 of the proposed bill, in line 1, after “Utilities” insert “– Backflow Preventers –

Water and Wastewater”.

Mr. Volke, Sponsor, stated that this is a technical amendment.

On motion of Mr. Volke, seconded by Ms. Fiedler, Amendment No. 1 was adopted by the

following roll call:


Ms. Pickard

Nay – None

Amendment No. 2

On page 3 of the proposed bill, in line 12, strike the opening brackets; and in line 13, strike

the closing brackets.

Mr. Volke, Co-Sponsor, stated that this amendment was discussed at the Work Session. It

removes the back billing for a non-customer omission or error.

Ms. Haire, Co-Sponsor, stated that she struggles with the idea of presenting a homeowner

with a $1,000 bill just because they didn’t realize they were being charged incorrectly.

Ms. Rodvien asked the Administration if there was an estimated cost to the County for

waving the non-customer omissions or errors.

Mr. Baron stated that the Administration wants to make it clear that it also struggles with

the notion of a surprise bill that a customer may receive. He said that there are a few things the

Council should keep in mind if this amendment passes. The customer that received the back bill

did use the water that was provided. Mr. Baron stated that the estimated cost for waiving these

back billings to be approximately $50,000 per year. Water is an enterprise fund so it needs to be

self-sustaining. The Administration does not have an objection if the Council wants to remove

this provision from the bill, however, this money will have to come from somewhere and that

means that it will be spread across the system. He asked Ms. Henry to verify if $50,000 was the

correct amount for waiving the back billing.

Ms. Henry reiterated that the estimated cost to the County for waiving the non-customer

omissions or errors to be approximately $50,000 per year. Ms. Henry said that if there is a hardship,

there is a payment plan available to them, and if the hardship is that they just cannot afford to pay,

they would be connected to services that may be able to help them.

Ms. Lacey asked the Administration if the Maryland Public Service Commission regulates

any subject matter in Bill No. 61-20.

Ms. Henry stated that it does not.

Ms. Lacey also asked if this money cannot be collected, isn’t there a preventive way to

ensure that this wouldn’t continue to be a problem

Mr. Baron replied that it would be a policy decision that the Council would have to make.

Ms. Henry stated that this does not say we will back bill, it says we may. This gives the

County some recourse for high users that were able to get quite a bit of water and remiss in our

appropriate charging.

Ms. Pickard stated that while a residential customer may find it difficult to receive a $1,000

water bill that wasn’t their mistake, is there a way to differentiate commercial entities that have

gained free water at the expense of the taxpayer, or from a legal perspective, is it a one size fits all

solution.

Mr. Baron stated that he would have to refer to Ms. Kenney on the legality of differentiating

commercial and residential, and she has not yet arrived. He stated that it’s a difficult line to draw.

For instance, if you are a landlord and hold the property in an LLP, you are technically a

commercial entity. The policy decision that the Council must make is whether or not the money

gets spread across the board for customers, or commercial entities, or place the burden on the

customer or entity who was responsible.

Ms. Haire, Co-Sponsor, asked if Mr. Baron, when talking about the burden being spread

across the whole system, is talking in terms of setting rates for future years.

Mr. Baron stated that would be a question for Ms. Kenney who has not arrived yet.

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


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

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

Amendment No. 3

On page 1 of the proposed bill, in lines 5 through 6, strike “requiring payment of a service

charge for restoration of water service after it is turned off for an improperly functioning backflow

preventer;”.

On page 2, in line 39, strike “; HAS BEEN” and substitute “AND”; and in lines 41 through

42, strike “; AND UPON PAYMENT OF THE SERVICE CHARGE SET FORTH IN § 13-5-811”.

On page 3, in lines 46 through 49, strike “WHENEVER WATER SERVICE HAS BEEN TURNED

OFF IN ACCORDANCE WITH § 13-5-108, A SERVICE CHARGE OF $50 SHALL BE PAID IN ORDER TO

RESTORE SERVICE AFTER COMPLIANCE WITH § 13-5-108.”;

Mr. Volke, Co-Sponsor, stated that the purpose of Amendment No. 3 is to remove the

proposed new service fee that would be included when there is restoration of water. The reason

for this is that DPW is already doing this work. He said that what it sounds like is that now DPW

is looking to bill the customer for restoration of water due to the work they have done.

Mr. Baron stated that the Administration respectfully asks the Council to reject

Amendment No. 3. He said that this amendment aligns restoration of water service fees that is

already included when service is turned off. The Department does and must redirect resources

away from plan and program work to restore service, as there is an indirect cost in loss

productivity.

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


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

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

Amendment No. 4 (Withdrawn)

Mr. Volke, Sponsor, withdrew Amendment No. 4.

Amendment No. 5

On page 2 of the proposed bill, in line 37, after the comma insert “THE DEPARTMENT

SHALL ISSUE THE OWNER A NOTICE TO INSTALL, TEST, REPAIR, OR REPLACE THE BACKFLOW

PREVENTER WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE NOTICE. IF THE OWNER FAILS TO COMPLY,

THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ISSUE A SECOND NOTICE TO INSTALL, TEST, REPAIR, OR REPLACE THE

BACKFLOW PREVENTER WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE NOTICE. IF THE OWNER FAILS TO

COMPLY WITH THE SECOND NOTICE,”.

Ms. Haire, Sponsor, stated that there is a potential penalty in the bill to turn off someone’s

water for having a backflow preventer that is either not working or can’t be tested. She said that

she expressed her concern at the work session about the fact that DPW could turn off their water

without any notice. She spoke with the Administration and worked with them on this amendment

which provides notice to the customer prior to DPW turning off their water.

Mr. Baron reiterated what Ms. Haire stated. He that the one thing he wanted to correct was

that this was not a compromise, as this was something that DPW was doing anyway. He said that

the Administration appreciates Ms. Haire’s reasoning.

Ms. Lacey asked the Administration if it is true that this would only apply to homes built

after 2015.

Mr. Baron answered affirmatively. He stated that the County is requiring retrofitting of

houses that were built before it existed in the Code. He asked for someone from DPW or the Office

of Law to correct him if he was incorrect.

There was additional discussion between the Council and Administration regarding

Amendment No. 5.

On motion of Ms. Haire, seconded by Mr. Volke, Amendment No. 5 was adopted by the

following roll call vote:

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

Nay – None

Abstain – Ms. Lacey

Amendment No. 6 (Withdrawn)

Ms. Fiedler, Sponsor, withdrew Amendment No. 6.

The Chairman stated that Bill No. 61-20, as amended will be heard on Monday, October

5, 2020.

BILL NO. 62-20

The Chairman called for the public hearing on Bill No. 62-20, An Ordinance concerning:

Public Safety – Off-the-Road Motorcycles – For the purpose of defining “off-the-road

motorcycle”; prohibiting off-the-road motorcycles within 300 feet of a dwelling unless permission

is given; allowing sanctions for a violation; and generally relating to public safety; and the

Administrative Officer read the title.

Mr. Pruski, Sponsor, stated that Bill No. 62-20 was discussed at the Work Session. He

stated that Bill No. 62-20 defines “off-the-road motorcycle” and prohibits use within 300 feet of a

dwelling.

Pete Baron, Director, Government Affairs, was accompanied by Major Ross Passman,

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

stated that the Administration supports Bill No. 62-20. He said that he understands there is an

amendment coming from the Sponsor. He said that it is a reasonable intent of the Sponsor to make

sure that loud noise does not disturb another neighborhood.

The Administrative Officer stated there was one submission of written public testimony on

Bill No. 62-20, which was shared with the Council and posted on the County Council website.

The following person spoke on Bill No. 62-20:

Edward Evans, Crownsville

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

The Chairman called Bill No. 62-20, An Ordinance concerning: Public Safety – Off-the-

Road Motorcycles; and the Administrative Officer read a portion of the title.

Amendment No. 1

On page 1 of the proposed bill, in line 23, after “PERMISSION” strike “A” and substitute “AN

ADULT”.

Mr. Pruski, Sponsor, stated that he realizes that there is a lot of rural and agricultural land

in the County, and some folks may not have an issue with motorcycles within 300 feet. This is for

anyone who does not have an issue with motorcycles.

Mr. Baron stated that the Administration supports Amendment No. 1.

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

the following roll call vote:

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

Ms. Pickard

Nay – None


5, 2020.

RECESS

On motion of Ms. Lacey, seconded by Mr. Pruski, the Council voted to recess at 7:30 P.M.

RECOVENE

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

BILL NO. 63-20


Public Safety – Electronic Smoking Devices in Restaurants – Prohibition – For the purpose of

prohibiting the use of electronic smoking devices in restaurants; defining certain terms; allowing

sanctions for violations; and generally relating to public safety; and the Administrative Officer

read the title.

Mr. Pruski, Sponsor, stated that Bill No. 63-20 came about as a result of a constituent who

went into a restaurant and proceeded to smoke an electronic cigarette. Someone complained and

spoke with the manager. The manager said that he was unaware of a law that would prevent

someone smoking electronic cigarettes inside a restaurant. Mr. Pruski said that after doing some

research, there is no nothing in the Code to prevent someone smoking electronic cigarettes inside

a restaurant. He reiterated that this bill is only prohibiting smoking electronic smoking devices

inside restaurants. He said that there would be an amendment that would clarify some language in

the Code.

Pete Baron, Director, Government Affairs, was accompanied by Don Curtian, Acting

Director, Environmental Health Bureau, Major Ross Passman, AACo Police Department, and

Kelly Kenney, Senior County Attorney, Office of Law. Mr. Baron stated that the Administration

supports Bill No. 63-20. He asked the Council to support this bill.


on Bill No. 63-20.


The Chairman called Bill No. 63-20, An Ordinance concerning: Public Safety – Electronic

Smoking Devices in Restaurants – Prohibition; and the Administrative Officer read a portion of

the title.

Amendment No. 1

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

line 1 on page 1 through line 6 on page 2, inclusive, and substitute:

“AN ORDINANCE concerning: Licenses and Registrations – Electronic Smoking Devices in

Restaurants – Indoor Prohibition

FOR the purpose of prohibiting the use of electronic smoking devices indoors in restaurants;

defining certain terms; providing for a penalty for violations; and generally relating to licenses and

registrations.

BY adding: § 11-6-104

Anne Arundel County Code (2005, as amended)

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the County Council of Anne Arundel County, Maryland,

Section(s) of the Anne Arundel County Code (2005, as amended) read as follows:

ARTICLE 11. LICENSES AND REGISTRATIONS

TITLE 6. FOOD SERVICE FACILITIES

11-6-104. Electronic smoking devices.

(A) Definition. IN THIS SECTION, THE FOLLOWING WORDS HAVE THE MEANINGS

INDICATED:

(1) “ELECTRONIC SMOKING DEVICE” HAS THE MEANING STATED IN § 16.7-101 OF

THE BUSINESS REGULATION ARTICLE OF THE STATE CODE.

(2) “RESTAURANT” MEANS A COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT FOR THE SALE OF

FOOD FOR ON-PREMISES CONSUMPTION.

(B) Prohibition. A RESTAURANT SHALL PROHIBIT THE INDOOR USE OF ELECTRONIC

SMOKING DEVICES.

(C) Violations. IT IS A CLASS E CIVIL OFFENSE TO VIOLATE ANY PROVISION OF THIS

SECTION.”.

Mr. Pruski, Sponsor, stated that Amendment No. 1 clarifies who enforces the prohibited

use of electronic smoking devices.

Mr. Baron thanked Mr. Pruski for this bill and amendment.

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

the following roll call vote:

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

Ms. Pickard

Nay – None


5, 2020.

BILL NO. 65-20


Zoning – Mixed Use Districts – Workforce Housing – For the purpose of allowing a developer to

submit or amend a plan to construct workforce housing in lieu of an office use in mixed use

districts; amending the percentage of office uses required in a Mixed Use Development Residential

district; exempting workforce housing from the requirements for maximum residential densities,

maximum floor area ratios, and maximum building heights in mixed use districts; and generally

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

Ms. Lacey, Sponsor, stated that the bill addresses the ability of a developer to substitute

workforce housing in lieu of an office use within Mixed Use Districts (MXD). There are several

categories under MXD. One of the things that Bill No. 65-20 does is take in the Mixed Use

Residential District category and allow substitution such that whatever percentage of office space

was originally in that plan in that district, such as none, it could be replaced with workforce housing

as a possibility. The bill is aimed at creating flexibility for how a developer can use the office space

within those mixed use zones. She said that given that the demand for office space has been in

decline for a long time, there are unused parcels in areas that were originally planned for higher

density or more intensive use. Ms. Lacey stated she thinks that the County would benefit from this

kind of substitution. It would further the County’s policy goals of constructing more workforce

housing and affordable housing in the County. She stated that the bill does not change anything

such as notifications or processes that apply, and it does not create any exemptions for adequate

public facilities, roads, or schools. Ms. Lacey asked for the Council’s support.

Pete Baron, Director, Government Affairs, was accompanied by Steve Kaii-Ziegler,

Director, and Lori Rhodes, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, Planning & Zoning, Kathy Koch,

Executive Director, Arundel Community Development Services, and Lori Blair Klasmeier,

Deputy County Attorney, Office of Law.

Mr. Baron said that as the Sponsor stated, all adequate public facilities and ordinances must

be followed. He said that mixed use zones aren’t changed except to allow the swapping of one

particular type of mixed use which is office use. As Ms. Lacey explained the demand for office

space has been on a decline for quite a while. He said that this bill does not allow for a public

meeting to be avoided if the change of use is made. The community would still have an opportunity

to speak up. Mr. Baron stated that this Administration is firmly committed to protecting the

environment by using smart growth strategies. He said the Administration believes that Bill No.

65-20 does that by locating workforce housing in areas already zoned for high density uses. We

are making our County a more affordable place for teachers, firefighters, and police officers to live

without furthering the kind of sprawl that threatens our forests and watersheds. He stated that the

Administration supports this bill.

Ms. Haire asked the Administration if someone could help her understand what a practical

parcel would look like if there are one hundred or ten acres. What percentage or how many units

of workforce housing might go on that parcel under this bill versus what percentage of office or

residential would be allowed on the parcel. She said that she is just trying to understand the

intensity of use that might go in under this bill versus what is currently allowed.

Ms. Rhodes stated that this bill will allow a 100 acre parcel zoned MXD-R to combine the

category of uses which would consist of residential, which has a threshold of 50-80%, and the

office use would be allowed to be substituted by workforce housing that would cover what was

10% to zero to 25%. They could either not provide any office or substitute it for workforce

housing. They would also have to provide a threshold of retail and service uses to 5% to 25% and

that would all be combined in this mixed use development, which is supposed to be a compact

urban type of development as opposed to a low density residential development where there is

residential sprawl. That is the goal of mixed use, to get all of that combined where there is

transportation and walking to everything as opposed to the sprawl of residential. The density would

be decided by the chart that is in the Code. Workforce Housing would be regulated by the

conditional uses in Title 10.

Ms. Haire asked if she was reading the chart correctly. Theoretically, in an MXD-R zone

you could have up to 95% residential workforce housing and the bulk regulations for R-22 would

apply?

Ms. Rhodes said the bulk regulations for MXD-R would apply for the portion that is

residential, and then the portion that is workforce housing would be regulated by Title 10.

Ms. Rodvien asked Ms. Rhodes to clarify that under the current law of MXD-R zoning,

you could already have high density development, is that correct?

Ms. Rhodes stated that is correct. You could have 50-80% residential and 10% office, and

5-25% retail. It gives the developer the flexibility to have this type of smart growth which is

compact, walkable, and a mix of uses in an urban setting.

Ms. Rodvien stated that some of the confusion that she has heard from constituents

regarding this bill is that it would be allowing high density in a place where high density would

otherwise not be allowed. She said that this bill would basically allow a different type of high

density in an already existing high density. She asked Ms. Rhodes for clarification.

Ms. Rhodes replied affirmatively. She said that MXD-R currently allows seven dwelling

units per acre. The office component would be substituted by the workforce housing which allows

up to 22.

There was further discussion between the Council and Administration regarding the MXD-

R zoning.

The Administrative Officer stated there were 17 submissions of written public testimony

on Bill No. 62-20, which was shared with the Council and posted on the County Council website.

The following persons spoke on Bill No. 65-20:

Austin Holley, Millersville

Holly Slack, Severna Park

Greg Cantori, Annapolis

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

The Chairman called Bill No. 65-20, An Ordinance concerning: Zoning – Mixed Use

Districts – Workforce Housing; and the Administrative Officer read a portion of the title.

Bill No. 65-20 was passed by the following roll call vote:

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

Nay – Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Haire

PUBLIC HEARINGS AND CALL OF RESOLUTIONS FOR FINAL READING AND VOTE

RESOLUTION NO. 33-20

The Chairman called Resolution No. 33-20, Resolution approving the continued service of

William Lowry as Acting Chief of Police; and the Administrative Officer read the title.

Pete Baron, Director, Government Affairs, was accompanied by Acting Chief of Police,

Bill Lowry, and Lori Blair Klasmeier, Deputy County Attorney, Office of Law. Mr. Baron stated

as per the Charter, Resolution No.33-20 extends the service of Chief Lowry, as Acting Chief of

Police until January 21, 2021. He said that the County Executive can appoint a department head

for sixty days. After those sixty days a resolution needs to be brought to the Council to extend that

for four months, and after that the County Executive may extend it one more time for six months.

Mr. Baron stated that Chief Lowry has done a fantastic job and has been a huge source of

information to the Administration. He is not interested in applying for the permanent job of Chief

of Police. He will remain as Acting Chief of Police until the Administration appoints a new Chief

of Police. He asked for the Council’s support with this resolution.

Mr. Pruski stated that Chief Lowry is well respected by everyone he has come in contact

with and he said that he will be voting for the extension.

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

Resolution No. 33-20.


The Chairman called Resolution No. 33-20, Resolution approving the continued service of

William Lowry as Acting Chief of Police; and the Administrative Officer read a portion of the

title.

Resolution No. 33-20 was adopted by the following roll call vote:


Ms. Pickard

Nay – None


The Chairman called Resolution No. 34-20, Resolution authorizing the submittal of an

application for Community Development Block Grant funds and recognizing the County

Executive’s authority to act in connection with the grant; and the Administrative Officer read the

title.

Pete Baron, Director, Government Affairs, was accompanied by Kathy Koch, Executive

Director, Arundel Community Development Services (ACDS), and Lori Blair Klasmeier, Deputy

County Attorney, Office of Law. Mr. Baron stated that Resolution No. 34-20 provides evidence

of support from the County Council for the County’s grant application to the Maryland Department

of Housing and Community Development for the Community Development Block Grant Funds

being made available through the Federal CARES Act to support the County’s Eviction Prevention

Program. Mr. Baron asked Ms. Koch to say a few words about the prevention program.

Ms. Koch reiterated what Mr. Baron stated about the grant application. She said that the

grant is for One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,200,000). She stated that since the

beginning of the program in April, the Department has been able to help 550 households pay their

rent and keep their house. There are approximately 170 people on the waiting list and these funds

will be able to help them also.

Ms. Fiedler stated that she went on the State website for the CDCGs and Anne Arundel

County is one of the jurisdictions that is prohibited from filing under that grant program. There

has to be a reason why we can here and now and asked for an explanation as to how this works.

Ms. Koch stated that in round one of the Community Development Block Grant Funds,

available through the Federal CARES Act funding, the amount available was Four Million Five

Hundred Thousand Dollars ($4,500,000) and those funds were available for non-entitled

jurisdictions, so the County was not able to apply. The second round of funds available is for Two

Million Dollars (2,000,000) for entitled jurisdictions which means that we were able to apply for

funds. She said that the County is waiting to hear if it will be able to apply for funding in round

three.

The Administrative Officer stated there was one submission of written public testimony on

Resolution No. 34-20, which was shared with the Council and posted on the County Council

website.


The Chairman called Resolution No. 34-20, Resolution authorizing the submittal of an

application for Community Development Block Grant funds and recognizing the County

Executive’s authority to act in connection with the grant; and the Administrative Officer read a

portion of the title.


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

Ms. Pickard

Nay – None


The Chairman called Resolution No. 38-20, Resolution urging the County Executive to lift

certain indoor restrictions imposed on restaurants and bars in Anne Arundel County; and the

Administrative Officer read a portion of the title.

Ms. Fiedler, Co-Sponsor, stated that she has been serving on the COVID Recovery Work

Group for several months. She said she believes if members of the Council were privy to some of

these conversations, they would understand the on-going disagreement related to the curfew on

bars and restaurants to close indoor services at 10:00 p.m. Restaurants and bars are only weeks

away from not being able to serve outside because of the weather. They have been operating at

50% capacity for months and it has caused an enormous financial loss for them. In July the County

Executive added additional curfew restrictions, at the suggestion of the County Health Officer,

because it was said that in addition to the case surges, we would see them play out in our hospitals

and our death rate. We have not seen that at all. Ms. Fiedler said that these businesses have given

back to our community, not only in the taxes that they pay, but by providing support for non-profit

organizations, schools, churches, and in our community. Many of these owners are members in

our community. They are located here and their businesses support their employees who are also

County residents, and it supports their families. She stated that restaurants and bars have been

unfairly restricted in Anne Arundel County more than any other jurisdiction in the State. Our

hospitalizations in the County have been flat since June, while we continue to hold these businesses

in a detrimental restricted time frame for opening. There has been no evidence, to date, that anyone

has contracted COVID at a bar or restaurant. Ms. Fiedler said she believes that if we are allowing

in the next week, movie theaters, indoor entertainment, convenience stores, casinos, and bowling

alleys to be open past 10:00 p.m. and be able to serve food, beer and wine or any other alcoholic

beverages, then why not allow this in our bars and restaurants. She said she fully supports all of

these industries to be open to the fullest extent.

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

Director, Policy and Communications, and Dr. Nilesh Kalyanarama, Health Officer.

Mr. Trumbauer stated that the Administration asks that the Council reject Resolution No.

38-20. He said that one of the issues he had with the resolution is using the term curfew. He said

the term “curfew” forces one to go inside, and that is not what is intended. He said that the

Administration is asking the bars and restaurants to stop serving alcohol at 10:00 p.m. They can

still go outside. Mr. Trumbauer stated that the Administration has put in a lot of thought into policy

actions. There have been rigorous discussions and lots of disagreements in the Work Group, but

that is what makes it so valuable, to hear that diversity of opinion. The County Executive feels

strongly that this action is necessary as bars and restaurants are where the disease can and has

spread and he doesn’t want that to happen.

Dr. Kalyanarama presented a slide show with updated COVID information, which showed

case rates per day and contact tracing data which showed where those who were positive with

COVID said they were. Dr. Kalyanarama said that in July, 2020 the County closed bars and

restaurants at 10:00 p.m, and within eleven days, there was decline in cases. Dr. Kalyanarama

stated that when assessing changes, there are several things to look at. The Department assesses

individual risk of activity, increasing activity in one area, increasing risks everywhere. The more

activities that open, the more rapidly risk increases. He said that the highest risk is family

gatherings. If the numbers are combined from the inside dining with outside dining, it is the second

highest risk of COVID cases. Dr. Kalyanarama stated that the CDC has found that restaurants and

bars continue to have a significantly higher impact on COVID-19 transmission due to the inability

to maintain distancing and mask usage. The situation worsens when there is alcohol consumption,

particularly as it increases over the course of the night.

Ms. Haire asked Dr. Kalyanarama questions regarding the chart that showed where people

who tested positive for COVID had been and asked for clarification. She stated that some

jurisdictions limit having alcohol by only making it available with food. She asked Dr.

Kalyanarama if he would be open to that suggestion.

Dr. Kalyanarama said that he was aware of some jurisdictions doing that. However, he

reiterated that the longer alcohol is consumed the less likely they are to wear masks and maintain

distancing. He said this is why the 10:00 p.m. curfew was put in place. He said that his concern is

that there is no distinction made of the time when these exposures occur. The 10:00 p.m. allows

for some activity, but not alcohol.

Ms. Lacey stated that when she toured the LIVE! Casino, she noticed that they had hand

sanitizers everywhere and employees were wiping down everything after someone would use it.

She asked Dr. Kalyanarama, that given the fact that handwashing, and wearing masks are so

helpful in stopping the spreading of COVID-19, is there any way that the County could support

bars and restaurants to help them.

Dr. Kalyanarama said that the problem with bars and restaurants is that they are not wearing

masks and not distancing. While hand washing is important, he doesn’t know if it would help in

that situation.

Ms. Lacey asked if the bars and restaurants were committed to being open beyond 10:00

p.m. is there any way the Health Department could provide them with warning signs that says what

a high risk activity it is, and can we do more to educate the public.

Dr. Kalyanarama said that could be done, but he doesn’t think it would be sufficient enough

to mitigate the activity itself. Unless it deterred someone from undertaking that activity it would

be moot.

Ms. Fiedler said that the numbers in our County are where they were when the 10:00 p.m.

curfew was put in place. She said that the slides that were shown do not indicate where someone

has contracted COVID -19. She said that in the last meeting, there was discussion about shifting

risks. She asked Dr. Kalyanarama if we are lowering the risk or shifting the risk to somewhere

else, because our numbers are the same as when the restrictions were put in place for bars and

restaurants.

Dr. Kalyanarama said to the question of whether we are lowering or shifting the risk, it is

both. Our actions and recommendations will be a portion of both. He stated that we are lowering

the risk. He said that when we put in a restriction it does lower the activity. He agreed that some

people will go to another jurisdiction that doesn’t have the same restrictions as we do, but overall

we have seen that the activity itself just stops.

There was further conversation between Ms. Fiedler and Dr. Kalyanarama regarding the

lifting of the restriction on bars and restaurants.

RECESS

On motion of Ms. Hire, seconded by Ms. Rodvien, the Council voted to recess at 9:11 p.m.

RECOVENE

The Council reconvened at 9:21 p.m. with all Councilmembers present.

Mr. Volke asked Dr. Kalyanarama if he was aware of any other jurisdiction that has a

closing time of 10:00 p.m. for bars and restaurants.

Dr. Kalyanarama said that is not aware, but he referred to Mr. Trumbauer.

Mr. Volke asked Dr. Kalyanarama, in terms of the data that he has been using to make

these decisions, if he has data that shows transmission in bars and restaurants after 10:00 p.m.

Dr. Kalyanarama stated that he did not have data.

Mr. Volke said that he is looking at the State’s COVID dashboard, the seven day case rate

per 100,000 by jurisdictions. The latest data shows that out of the seven counties in Maryland, only

Prince George’s County has the highest rate per 100,000 case rates. He asked Dr. Kalyanarama if

he was aware of that.

Dr. Kalyanarama responded affirmatively.

There was further discussion between the Council and the Administration regarding the

lifting of the 10:00 p.m. curfew for bars and restaurants. The discussion also included the fact that

Anne Arundel County is still in Stage Two.

Amendment No. 1

On page 2 of the proposed resolution, in line 10, strike “curfew” substitute “restriction”; and

in line 17, strike “their current” and substitute “proper”.

Ms. Fiedler stated that this amendment is to get the Resolution to show good faith and the

intent of it. She said that she wants the Administration and her colleagues to understand that this

is an effort to salvage some businesses.

Mr. Baron stated that this is the first time they are seeing this amendment. He stated that it

is his understanding that the word “curfew” is being changed to “restriction”, and it is still calling

for bars and restaurants to be opened past 10:00 p.m., and there is a softening of some of the

language around the “proper” protections rather than the one that is currently in place.

Ms. Fiedler responded to Mr. Baron by saying he was correct. This amendment addresses

the two areas that Mr. Trumbauer referred to earlier.

Mr. Baron stated that the Administration is still not willing to open bars and restaurants

past 10:00 p.m.

Mr. Trumbauer thanked Ms. Fiedler for the amendment and appreciated the wording

changes in those two areas of his concern. He said he was a little confused as to the intent of the

Resolution and asked Ms. Fiedler to clarify.

Ms. Fiedler said that the wording change gives the Administration the flexibility to work

with the Health Officer and the Work Group. That language gives flexibility for the County

Executive to explore ways to improve safety measures or safeguards in restaurants or bars that

may not be required or taking place at this time.

RECESS

On motion of Mr. Volke, seconded by Ms. Hair, the Council vote to recess at 10:12 p.m.

RECONVENE

The Council reconvened at 10:17 p.m. with all Councilmembers present.

Mr. Trumbauer stated that the Administration does not have any objection to the

amendment. He reserved the right to comment on the full resolution at the appropriate time.

On motion of Ms. Haire, seconded by Mr. Volke, Amendment No. 1 was adopted by the

following roll call vote:


Ms. Pickard

Nay – None

Mr. Trumbauer stated that it is important to keep in mind the context of this resolution. It

is a non-binding resolution. It is the Council letting the County Executive and the Administration

know of its intent. The Administration appreciates the intent of the Resolution but still does not

support it.

There was further conversation with the Council and the Administration regarding

Resolution 38-20 and its amendment.

Resolution No. 38-20, as amended, was adopted by the following roll call vote:

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

Nay – Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Pickard


The Chairman called Resolution No. 39-20, Resolution requesting the Anne Arundel

County Department of Health to formulate guidance to safely reopen elementary schools and

special education for in-person learning in accordance with guidance set forth by the State Board

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

Ms. Hair, Sponsor, stated that Resolution No. 39-20 asks for guidance from the Health

Department to reopen schools for in-person learning by October 1, 2020.

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

Director, Policy and Communications, and Dr. Nilesh Kalyanarama, Health Officer. Mr. Baron

stated that the Administration is having conversations and doing the preparation work to around

that date. He referred to Dr. Kalyanarama for additional information.

Dr. Kalyanarama stated that the preparation work has been going on since July. We were

held up waiting for State guidelines which were received at the end of August. He said that he has

been working with a Scientific Advisory Group from John Hopkins, University of Maryland, and

Morgan State to help shape our re-opening metrics, to help shape our testing approach, and our

cases in schools and closures.

There was further conversations between the Council and the Administration regarding

Resolution No. 39-20 and the need for a specific date for guidance in re-opening in-person schools.


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

Nay – Ms. Lacey

ADJORNMENT

There being no further business, on motion of Mr. Volke, seconded by Ms. Lacey, the

meeting adjourned at 10:42 P.M.

The Chairman stated that the next Council meeting will be on Monday, October 5, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

by Lee Longo

for JoAnne Gray

Administrative Officer



Bill No. 84-20

Introduced by Ms. Pickard, Chair


By the County Council, October 5, 2020

________________________________________________________________________

Introduced and first read on October 5, 2020

Public Hearing set for November 2, 2020

Bill Expires January 8, 2021

By Order: JoAnne Gray, Administrative Officer

________________________________________________________________________

A BILL ENTITLED

AN ORDINANCE concerning: Current Expense Budget – Board of Education –1

Supplementary Appropriations 2

3

FOR the purpose of making supplementary appropriations from unanticipated revenues to 4

the Local Education Fund for the current fiscal year; and generally relating to 5

supplementary appropriations to the current expense budget for the fiscal year ending 6

June 30, 2021. 7

8

BY amending: Current Expense Budget 9

10

WHEREAS, under Section 712 of the Charter, upon the recommendation of the 11

County Executive, the County Council may make supplementary appropriations 12

from revenues received from anticipated sources but in excess of budget estimates 13

and from revenues received from sources not anticipated in the budget for the 14

current fiscal year, provided that the Controller shall first certify in writing that such 15

funds are available for appropriation; and 16

17

WHEREAS, § 5-105(a) of the Education Article of the Annotated Code of 18

Maryland, requires that all revenues received by the Board of Education be spent 19

in accordance with the major categories of its annual budget as provided under § 5-20

101 of the Education Article, and § 5-105(b) of the Education Article requires that 21

transfers between major categories be approved by the County Council; and 22

23

WHEREAS, the County Executive has recommended the supplementary 24

appropriation of certain funds, and the Controller has certified in writing that such 25

funds are available for appropriation; now, therefore, 26

PROPOSED

Bill No. 84-20

Page No. 2

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the County Council of Anne Arundel County, Maryland, 1

That the Current Expense Budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2021, is hereby 2

amended by making supplementary appropriations of revenues received from sources not 3

anticipated in the budget and from revenues received from anticipated sources in excess of 4

budget estimates in the Local Education Fund as follows: 5

6

(1) Federal and State Grants $ 29,244,200 7

8

SECTION 2. And be it further enacted, That the Current Expense Budget for the fiscal 9

year ending June 30, 2021, is hereby amended by making supplementary appropriations of 10

such funds to the below-listed accounts in the Local Education Fund in the respective 11

amounts set forth: 12

13

(1) Administration $ 161,700 14

(2) Mid-Level Administration $ 700 15

(3) Instructional Salaries and Wages $ 4,327,500 16

(4) Textbooks & Classroom Supplies $ 21,157,000 17

(5) Other Instructional Costs $ 697,800 18

(6) Special Education $ 983,000 19

(7) Pupil Services $ 100,000 20

(8) Pupil Transportation $ 30,000 21

(9) Operation of Plant $ 1,090,500 22

(10) Fixed Charges $ 696,000 23

24

SECTION 3. And be it further enacted, That this Ordinance shall take effect from the 25

date is becomes law. 26

_____________________________________________________________________________________

EXPLANATION: CAPITALS indicate new matter added to existing law.

[[Brackets]] indicate matter deleted from existing law.

Captions and taglines in bold in this bill are catchwords and are not law. Asterisks *** indicate existing Code provisions in a list or chart that remain unchanged.



Bill No. 85-20




________________________________________________________________________





________________________________________________________________________

A BILL ENTITLED

AN ORDINANCE concerning: Public Works – Utilities – Water and Wastewater System 1

Connections and Charges 2

3

FOR the purpose of eliminating the water and wastewater user connection charge; 4

requiring a licensed utility contractor to submit and maintain a security with the 5

Department; requiring work performed under a tap connection permit be subject to a 6

warranty and security; adding a certain definition; eliminating the option to connect to 7

the water or wastewater system under a private contract administered by the 8

Department; establishing connection methods for water and wastewater system 9

connections; requiring a tap connection permit and payment of a permit fee; providing 10

for exceptions to the application of this Ordinance; and generally relating to public 11

works. 12

13

BY repealing: § 13-5-813(c), (e), and (s) 14

Anne Arundel County Code (2005, as amended) 15

16

BY renumbering: §§ 13-5-813(j) through (q), (t), and (u), respectively, to be § 13-5-813(i) 17

through (p), (r), and (s), respectively 18


20

BY repealing and reenacting, with amendments: §§ 13-5-110(a)(3); 13-5-404; 13-5-813(a), 21

(d), (f), (g), (h), (i), and (r); 13-5-815(b); and 13-5-815.1(b), (c), (d), and (e)(i) 22


PROPOSED

Bill No. 85-20

Page No. 2

BY adding: § 13-5-113; and 13-5-813(f) 1


3


That § 13-5-813(c), (e), and (s) of the Anne Arundel County Code (2005, as amended) be 5

repealed. 6

7

SECTION 2. And be it further enacted, That § 13-5-813 (j) through (q), (t), and (u), 8

respectively, of the Anne Arundel County Code (2005, as amended) is hereby renumbered 9

to be § 13-5-813 (i) through (p), (r), and (s), respectively. 10

11


That Section(s) of the Anne Arundel County Code (2005, as amended) read as follows: 13

14

ARTICLE 13. PUBLIC WORKS 15

16

TITLE 5. UTILITIES 17

18

13-5-110. Agreements with developers. 19

20

(a) Generally. The County may enter into agreements that: 21

22

*** 23

24

(3) waive front foot benefit charges [[and user connection charges]] when lateral 25

lines are installed by a developer within or abutting properties that are being improved by 26

the developer. 27

28

13-5-113. Annual security for licensed utility contractors. 29

30

A LICENSED UTILITY CONTRACTOR ENGAGING IN THE INSTALLATION OF WATER OR 31

SEWER SERVICES BY PERFORMING A TAP CONNECTION TO A WATER OR WASTEWATER 32

MAINLINE SHALL SUBMIT AND MAINTAIN WITH THE DEPARTMENT A SECURITY IN THE 33

AMOUNT OF $50,000, WHICH MAY SERVE AS SECURITY FOR MULTIPLE PERMITS AS LONG 34

AS A CONSTANT BALANCE OF $50,000 IS MAINTAINED. THE WORK PERFORMED UNDER A 35

TAP CONNECTION PERMIT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME WARRANTY PERIOD AND 36

WARRANTY TERMS THAT EXIST FOR WORK IN A COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY AS SET FORTH IN 37

§ 13-3-208 AND THE SAME REQUIREMENTS FOR A SECURITY THAT EXISTS FOR WORK IN A 38

COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY AS SET FORTH IN § 13-3-301(C) THROUGH (E). 39

40

13-5-404. Fees and charges for property otherwise connecting. 41

42

For property receiving an allocation otherwise than in conjunction with approval of 43

adequacy of public facilities by the Office of Planning and Zoning, the owner of the 44

property shall pay, for each equivalent dwelling unit, [[the user connection charge and]] 45

the capital facility connection charge as provided in §§ 13-5-813 and 13-5-814. 46

47

13-5-813. Water and wastewater system connection charges and assessments. 48

49

(a) Definitions. In this section, the following words have the meanings indicated. 50

Bill No. 85-20

Page No. 3

(1) “CPI” MEANS THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX - ALL URBAN CONSUMERS FOR THE 1

UNITED STATES - (CPI), PUBLISHED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 2

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS. 3

4

[[(1)]] (2) “Properties with existing improvements” means improved properties that 5

are supplied water by means of a private well system when County water becomes 6

available or improved properties that have wastewater service by means of a private septic 7

system when County wastewater becomes available. 8

9

[[(2)]] (3) “Properties with new improvements” means properties with new 10

construction that do not have water supplied by means of a private well system when 11

County water becomes available or properties with new construction that do not have 12

wastewater service by means of a private septic system when County wastewater service 13

becomes available. 14

15

[[(d)]] (C) Water system capital facility connection charge. Except as provided in 16

subsections [[(q), (t), and (u)]] (P), (R), AND (S) for connections to the County’s water 17

system, the capital facility connection charge for each equivalent dwelling unit is: 18

19

(1) [[7,729; 20

21

(2)]] $8,501[[, beginning on July 1, 2020]]; 22

23

[[(3)]] (2) $9,351, beginning on July 1, 2021; and 24

25

[[(4)]] (3) $10,286, beginning on July 1, 2022. 26

27

[[(f)]] (D) Wastewater system capital facility connection charge. Except as provided 28

in subsections [[(q), (t), and (u)]] (P), (R), AND (S) for connections to the County’s 29

wastewater system, the capital facility connection charge for each equivalent dwelling unit 30

is: 31

32

(1) [[$7,729; 33

34

(2)]] $8,501[[, beginning on July 1, 2020]]; 35

36

[[(3)]] (2) $9,351, beginning on July 1, 2021; and 37

38

[[(4)]] (3) $10,286, beginning on July 1, 2022. 39

40

[[(g)]] (E) Properties with new improvements. 41

42

[[(1) For properties with a connection constructed under a private contract 43

administered by the Department, whether residential or non-residential the user connection 44

charge shall be paid as follows: 45

46

Bill No. 85-20

Page No. 4

(i) A deposit in the amount of the certified cost of a connection as determined 1

by the Director in accordance with subsection (s) shall be paid when an application for 2

connection is made. 3

4

(ii) The Department shall provide an estimate of the cost of the connection, and 5

prior to connection, the difference between the deposit paid in accordance with subsection 6

(g)(1)(i) and the estimated cost shall be paid. 7

8

(iii) After the connection is completed, if the actual cost of the connection is 9

less than the total amount paid under subsections (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii), the difference 10

shall be refunded by the Department. If an application for connection, or payment under 11

subsections (g)(1)(i) or (ii), is made for connections to both the water and wastewater 12

system, the costs of both connections shall be totaled for purposes of determining whether 13

a refund is owed under this subsection. 14

15

(2)]] For [[a property]] PROPERTIES WITH NEW IMPROVEMENTS receiving an 16

allocation under § 13-5-403, the capital facility connection charge shall be paid as provided 17

in that section. 18

19

(F) Connection methods for water and wastewater services; tap connection fee. 20

EXCEPT FOR A COUNTY CAPITAL PROJECT OR PETITION PROJECT INITIATED IN 21

ACCORDANCE WITH § 13-5-303, CONNECTIONS TO THE COUNTY’S WATER OR WASTEWATER 22

SYSTEM SHALL BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS: 23

24

(1) AN OWNER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO ENTER INTO A PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT 25

WITH THE COUNTY TO AUTHORIZE CONNECTION TO THE COUNTY’S WATER OR 26

WASTEWATER SYSTEM IF: 27

28

(I) THE WATER OR WASTEWATER SERVICE IS TO BE INSTALLED WITHIN A 29

RIGHT-OF-WAY OWNED BY THE STATE; 30

31

(II) THE WATER SERVICE PIPE SIZE IS GREATER THAN TWO INCHES IN 32

DIAMETER OR THE WASTEWATER SERVICE PIPE SIZE IS GREATER THAN SIX INCHES IN 33

DIAMETER; 34

35

(III) THERE ARE THREE OR MORE SERVICE CONNECTIONS TO BE INSTALLED 36

WITHIN 500 FEET; 37

38

(IV) THE DEPTH OF THE WATER OR WASTEWATER DISTRIBUTION MAIN IS 18 39

FEET OR GREATER; OR 40

41

(V) AN EASEMENT IS NEEDED FOR ANY PART OF THE WATER OR WASTEWATER 42

SERVICE CONNECTION. 43

44

(2) IF A PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT IS NOT REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 45

PARAGRAPH (1), THE OWNER SHALL APPLY FOR A WATER OR WASTEWATER SERVICE TAP 46

CONNECTION PERMIT BEFORE MAKING A CONNECTION TO THE COUNTY’S WATER OR 47

WASTEWATER SYSTEM. THE FEE FOR A TAP CONNECTION PERMIT SHALL BE $225 FOR 48

EACH WATER OR WASTEWATER CONNECTION FOR EACH EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT. 49

BEGINNING ON JULY 1, 2021, AND EACH JULY 1 THEREAFTER, THE DIRECTOR MAY ADJUST 50

THE FEE BY A PERCENTAGE CHANGE CALCULATED BY DIVIDING THE CPI FOR APRIL OF 51

THAT CALENDAR YEAR BY THE CPI FOR APRIL FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING 52

CALENDAR YEAR. THE DIRECTOR SHALL GIVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE ANNUAL 53

https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/annearundel/latest/annearundelco_md/0-0-0-13570#JD_13-5-403

Bill No. 85-20

Page No. 5

ADJUSTMENT TO THE OFFICE OF FINANCE AND TO THE COUNTY COUNCIL. THE ANNUAL 1

ADJUSTMENT SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY EFFECTIVE ON JULY 1 OF EACH YEAR. 2

3

[[(h)]] (G) Residential properties with existing improvements. Except for payments 4

partially deferred in accordance with § 13-5-815.1, for residential properties with existing 5

improvements, the applicable [[user connection charge and]] capital facility connection 6

charge shall be paid as follows: 7

8

(1) [[Both charges shall be paid in]] IN full when application for connection is made; 9

or 10

11

(2) Any portion [[of either charge]] may be paid when an application for connection 12

is made and the remainder shall be financed in 30 annual installments, or for connections 13

eligible for partial deferment under § 13-5-815.1, in 40 annual installments. The 14

installments shall accrue annual interest at the bond rate established by the Controller as of 15

the date of issuance of a construction contract notice to proceed for a petition project or, 16

for all other connections, the date of issuance of a connection permit. Any installments 17

shall be paid within 60 days of the billing date. 18

19

[[(i)]] (H) Nonresidential properties with existing improvements. For nonresidential 20

properties with existing improvements and for which a connection is constructed under a 21

County capital project or a petition project initiated in accordance with § 13-5-303, [[the 22

user connection charge and]] the capital facility connection charge shall be paid in full 23

when application for connection is made. 24

25

[[(r)]] (Q) Exemption for volunteer fire companies. A fire station on property owned 26

by a volunteer fire company formed pursuant to § 12-1-201 of this Code is exempt from 27

the capital facility connection charges [[and user connection charges describe]] DESCRIBED 28

in this section. 29

30

13-5-815. Exemption for elderly or disabled. 31

32

(b) Exemption. Any single-family dwelling owned and occupied by any person 60 33

years of age or older with a combined gross income that is less than the maximum income 34

level, or a surviving spouse with a combined gross income that is less than the maximum 35

income level, or a person receiving disability benefits as a result of a finding of permanent 36

and total disability under the Social Security Act, the United States Civil Service 37

Commission, Veterans’ Administration, or the Railroad Retirement Act shall be exempt 38

from [[the user connection charges,]] capital facilities connection charges, capital facilities 39

assessment charges, and front foot assessment charges until the sale or transfer of the 40

property, at which time the above charges become due and payable by the property owner. 41

42

13-5-815.1. Partial deferral of residential wastewater system connection charges and 43

assessments. 44

45

(b) Partial deferral. For connections to an extension of the County’s wastewater 46

system within an eligible area, the owner of a residential property with existing 47

improvements may choose to defer payment of up to 50%, separately or in total, of the 48


Bill No. 85-20

Page No. 6

assessment[[,]] AND the capital facility connection charges[[, and the user connection 1

charges]] imposed under § 13-5-813 until the earlier of 40 years after the date of connection 2

or upon a title transfer by deed of the property. The portion of any charge or assessment 3

that is not deferred shall be paid in accordance with §§ 13-5-601 et seq. and [[13-5-813(h)]] 4

13-5-813(G). 5

(c) Interest rate. The capital facility connection charges [[and user connection 6

charges]] deferred under subsection (b) shall accrue annual interest at the bond rate 7

established by the controller as of the date of issuance of a construction contract notice to 8

proceed for the wastewater extension project. 9

10

(d) Lien enforcement. The capital facility connection charges [[and user connection 11

charges]] deferred under subsection (b), any interest accrued under subsection (c), and any 12

assessment charges deferred under subsection (b), shall be a lien on the property, 13

subordinate only to the lien of State and County taxes and special benefit assessments, and 14

payment shall be enforced at the same time and in the same manner as such taxes and 15

assessments. 16

17

(e) Payment of deferred charges and unpaid balance. Upon the earlier of 40 years 18

after the date of connection or title transfer by deed, except when at least one record owner 19

remains the same either individually or as a trustee: 20

21

(i) The unpaid balance of the capital facility connection charges [[and user 22

connection charges]], plus any interest accrued under subsection (c) and § [[13-5-813(h)]] 23

13-5-813(G), becomes due and payable; 24

25

*** 26

27

SECTION 4. And be it further enacted, That this Ordinance shall not be construed to 28

apply to any connections to the County’s water or wastewater system installed prior to the 29

effective date of this Ordinance or for which a connection permit was issued prior to the 30

effective date of this Ordinance. 31

32

SECTION 5. And be it further enacted, That this Ordinance shall not be construed to 33

apply to any user connection charge that was deferred, financed, or assessed prior to the 34

effective date of this Ordinance, and any user connection charge that was deferred, 35

financed, or assessed prior to the effective date of this Ordinance shall continue to be 36

deferred, financed, assessed, and paid and collected in accordance with the provisions of 37

the Anne Arundel County Code in effect prior to the effective date of this Ordinance 38

governing the deferral, financing, assessment, and payment and collection of the user 39

connection charge. 40

41

SECTION 6. And be it further enacted, That this Ordinance shall take effect 45 days 42

from the date it becomes law. 43




Note: This Legislative Summary provides a synopsis of the bill as introduced. It does not address subsequent

amendments to the bill.

Gregory J. Swain, County Attorney

MEMORANDUM

To: Council Members, Anne Arundel County Council

From: Kelly Phillips Kenney, Supervising County Attorney /s/

Via: Gregory J. Swain, County Attorney /s/

Date: October 5, 2020

Subject: Bill No. 85-20 – Public Works – Utilities –Water and Wastewater System

Connections and Charges

Legislative Summary

This summary was prepared by the Anne Arundel County Office of Law for use by

members of the Anne Arundel County Council during consideration of Bill No. 85-20. The

summary is intended to explain the purposes and legal effects of the bill.

Purpose. The primary purpose of Bill No. 85-20 is to eliminate the “user connection

charge,” to eliminate the option to connect to public water or wastewater service under a private

contract administered by the Department of Public Works (“DPW”), and to replace that process

with a new tap connection permit or requirement for a public works agreement (“PWA”).

Background.

The water and wastewater user connection charges in the current Code are charged when

a property owner connects to the public water or sewer system. The charge generally applies for

construction on one or two lots (not connections made by developers in large developments or for

more complicated connections, both of which require a PWA). Currently, the County has a utility

contractor under contract to install these connections. The user connection charge reflects the

actual cost of construction of the water or sewer line from the property line to the water or sewer

main. The current process in § 13-5-813(g) of the County Code requires the owner to pay an initial

deposit, then pay the difference between the estimate and the deposit, and that the County

reimburse the property owner if the actual cost of connection comes in lower than the contractor’s

original estimate. If the actual cost is higher than the estimate, there is no provision allowing the

County to recoup the excess cost.

Legislative Summary – Bill No. 85-20

Page No. 2

Not only is this process somewhat convoluted, but property owners have not been using

this utility contractor method of connection as much as in the past. Rather, owners have been

opting to use the PWA process, which is the only other available option. The PWA process takes

more time, but ends up being less costly than using the County’s contractor in most situations. The

new legislation would eliminate the private utility contractor arrangement in § 13-5-813(g). It also

would provide owners with the option of applying for a tap connection permit for simple

connections without the need to enter into a PWA. The PWA will still be required for certain

connections outlined in the Bill.

Bill provisions.

The Bill removes all references to “user connection charge” in §§ 13-5-110, 13-5-404, 13-

5-815(b), 13-5-815.1(b), (c), (d), and (e)(i) and 13-5-805. Additionally, §§ 13-5-813(c) and (e),

which set forth the user connection charges, and (s), which sets forth the method of establishing

the standard user connection charge, are all repealed.

Section 13-5-113 is new and requires that a licensed utility contractor engaging in the

installation of water or sewer services by performing a tap connection to a water or wastewater

mainline to submit and maintain security in the amount of $50,000 with DPW, which may serve

as security for multiple permits as long as the constant balance is $50,000. The section also

provides that the work performed under a tap connection permit shall be subject to the same

warranty and requirements for work in a County right-of-way set forth in §§ 13-3-208 and 13-3-

301(c) through (e).1

1 Section 13-3-208 provides:

For a period of two years after satisfactory completion of work in a right-of-way, the owner and

permittee warrant and guarantee the quality of the work performed and are responsible for

maintaining the site free from any defects resulting from the quality of the work and, in the event of

such defects, for repairing or restoring the site to a condition that complies with all applicable law,

regulations, the Design Manual, and the County’s Standard Specifications and Details for

Construction. Any repair or restoration during the warranty period shall cause the warranty period

to run for one additional year beyond the original two-year period.

Subsections 13-3-301(c) through (e) provide:

(c) Form. Security shall be in the form of cash, an irrevocable letter of credit, a bond, or other

security acceptable to the Controller and the Director to secure the faithful performance of the

obligations of the owner and applicant under the permit and compliance with all terms and

conditions of this title.

(d) Deductions. The Director may make deductions from the security to pay fees, offset the costs

for any excavations or other repairs made by the Department, or pay any fines or costs associated

with violations of this title.

(e) Retention. The County shall retain the security for the warranty period set forth in § 13-3-

208(a). Upon the expiration of the warranty period, on written request of the permittee, the security,

less any deductions, shall be returned to the permittee, without interest.




Page No. 3

Section 13-5-813(a)(1) is new and adds the definition of “CPI”. Existing subsection (d) is

renumbered to (c) and existing (f) is renumbered to (d). These subsections pertain to the water

and wastewater capital facility connection charges, respectively. In both subsections, references

are updated due to the renumbering changes in the bill. Additionally, the obsolete capital facility

connection charge amount in both subsections is deleted and the remaining subsections are

renumbered.

Existing subsection (g) is renumbered to (e). Most of the language in (g) is being repealed

because it pertains to the connections under private contracts administered by DPW that are being

eliminated. The language from existing (g)(2) is revised to require that, for properties with new

improvements receiving an allocation under § 13-4-403, the capital facility connection charge shall

be paid as required in that section.

Subsection (f) is new and sets forth the new options for connections to the County’s water

or wastewater systems. Under (f)(1), an owner shall be required to enter into a PWA if (i) the

service is to be installed in a State right-of-way; (ii) the water service pipe size is greater than two

inches in diameter or the wastewater service pipe size is greater than six inches in diameter; (iii)

there are three or more service connections to be installed within 500 feet; (iv) the depth of the

distribution main is located 18 feet or greater; or (v) an easement is required for any part of the

water or wastewater connection.

Subsection (f)(2) provides that, if a PWA is not required in accordance with (f)(1), the

owner shall apply for a water or wastewater service tap connection permit. The fee for a tap

connection permit shall be $225 for each water or wastewater connection for each equivalent

dwelling unit.2 Additionally, the permit fee may be adjusted beginning on July 1, 2021, by a

percentage change calculated by dividing the CPI for April of that calendar year by the CPI for

April for the immediate preceding year. The Director shall give notice of the rate change to the

Office of Finance and the County Council, and it shall be effective July 1 of each year.

Existing subsections (h), (i), and (r) are renumbered to (g), (h), and (q), respectively, and

revised to remove all references to the user connection charge. The remaining subsections of § 13-

5-813 not set forth in the Bill are to be renumbered without any changes.

Section 4 provides that the Ordinance shall not be construed to apply to any connections

to the County’s water or wastewater system installed prior to the effective date or for which a

connection permit was issued prior to the effective date. In other words, any property that has a

connection permit in process while the Bill is pending will still connect and be subject to the

charges as provided under the existing Code.

Section 5 provides that the Ordinance shall not be construed to apply to any user

connection charge that was deferred, financed, or assessed prior to the effective date of the

Ordinance, and any user connection charge that was deferred, financed, or assessed prior to the

effective date. Those user connection charges shall continue to be deferred, financed, assessed,

2 “Equivalent dwelling unit” (“EDU”) is defined in § 13-5-401(4) as “a unit of 250 gallons of water, except that for

property in the Mayo Water Reclamation Subdistrict, “equivalent dwelling unit” means a unit of 225 gallons of water.”

One EDU is equal to one single family dwelling.


Page No. 4

and paid and collected in accordance with the provisions of the Anne Arundel County Code in

effect prior to the effective date.

Section 6 provides that the Bill is effective 45 days from the date it becomes law.

The Office of Law is available to answer any additional questions regarding this Bill.

Thank you very much.

cc: Honorable Steuart Pittman, County Executive

Matt Power, Chief Administrative Officer

Lori Rhodes, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer for Land Use

Dr. Kai Boggess-de Bruin, PhD, Chief of Staff

Peter Baron, Legislative Liaison

Christopher J. Phipps, Director, DPW

Karen Henry, Assistant Director, DPW

Karin McQuade, Controller

Jim Beauchamp, Budget Officer

_____________________________________________________________________________________






Bill No. 86-20




________________________________________________________________________





________________________________________________________________________

A BILL ENTITLED

AN ORDINANCE concerning: Subdivision and Development – Subdivision – Site 1

Development – Plan Review Timelines and Requirements 2

3

FOR the purpose of amending the time periods for certain development applications 4

re-submittals; amending the applicability of Site Development Plans and providing for 5

exemptions; amending the contents required in a preliminary plan; amending the 6

process for delivering comments to developers throughout the site development 7

approval process; amending the scope and applicability of the Site Development Plan 8

requirements; amending the contents of the Site Development Plan application; 9

requiring reservation of land for public facilities during the Site Development Plan 10

process; extending the time requirements for duration of approval for adequate public 11

facility testing for certain subdivisions, preliminary plans or site development plans; 12

and generally relating to subdivision and development. 13

14

BY repealing: §§ 17-2-108(e); 17-4-202(b) and (c); and 17-4-203(b) and (d) 15


17

BY renumbering: §§ 17-2-108(f) to be 17-2-108(e); 17-4-202(d) to be 17-4-202(c); and 18

17-4-203(e) and (f), respectively, to be 17-4-203(d) and (e), respectively19

Anne Arundel County Code (2005, as amended)20

21

BY repealing and reenacting, with amendments: §§ 17-3-203(c) and (d); 17-3-204; 17-3-22

303(b) and (c); 17-3-304(a) and (e); 17-4-101; 17-4-201; 17-4-202(a); 17-4-203(a) and 23

(c); 17-4-207; 17-5-203(a) and (b); 17-5-204(a) and (b); and 17-5-205(b) 24

PROPOSED

Bill No. 86-20

Page No. 2


2

BY adding: §§ 17-4-202(b); and 17-4-301 through 17-4-302 to be under the new subtitle 3

“Subtitle 3. Requirements for All Site Development Plans” 4


6


That §§ 17-2-108(e), 17-4-202(b) and (c), and 17-4-203(b) and (d) of the Anne Arundel 8

County Code (2005, as amended) be repealed. 9

10

SECTION 2. And be it further enacted, That §§ 17-2-108(f), 17-4-202(d), and 17-4-11

203(e) and (f), respectively, of the Anne Arundel County Code (2005, as amended) are 12

hereby renumbered to be §§ 17-2-108(e), 17-4-202(c), and 17-4-203(d) and (e), 13

respectively. 14

15



18

ARTICLE 17. SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT 19

20

TITLE 3. SUBDIVISION 21

22

17-3-203. Review; County report; developer re-submittal; notice of approval. 23

24

(c) Developer re-submittals; comments by the County. After the developer files a 25

sketch plan re-submittal, the Office of Planning and Zoning shall provide promptly any 26

further findings, comments, and recommendations of the County through its reviewing 27

agencies, and shall attempt to resolve inconsistencies or conflicts among the agency 28

comments. Within [[60]] 90 days after the date the report is mailed, the developer shall file 29

a sketch plan re-submittal that addresses the findings, comments, and recommendations. 30

This process continues unless the application becomes void under subsection (e) or action 31

is taken on the application under subsection (g). 32

33

(d) Authority to extend time periods. 34

35

(1) Upon receipt of a written request not less than 10 days before a re-submittal 36

deadline in subsection (c), the Office of Planning and Zoning may grant a time extension 37

for re-submittal not to exceed 180 days. 38

39


deadline in subsection (c), and upon a determination by the Planning and Zoning Officer 41

that good cause is shown, the Office of Planning and Zoning may grant a second time 42

extension for a re-submittal not to exceed [[120]] 180 days. 43

44

(3) [[Upon receipt of a written request not less than 10 days before a re-submittal 45

deadline in subsection (c), and upon a determination by the Planning and Zoning Officer 46

that good cause is shown, the Office of Planning and Zoning may grant a third time 47

extension for re-submittal not to exceed 60 days 48

Bill No. 86-20

Page No. 3

(4)]] After a [[third]] SECOND time extension, any further extensions require a 1

modification PURSUANT TO § 17-2-108. 2

3

17-3-204 Expiration of approved sketch plan. 4

5

A sketch plan expires [[12]] 18 months after [[it is approved by]] THE DATE THAT the 6

Office of Planning and Zoning APPROVES THE SKETCH PLAN unless a final plan is 7

submitted for review prior to sketch plan expiration. Notwithstanding any modifications 8

granted to allow for additional time to complete a sketch plan, the Planning and Zoning 9

Officer may extend approval of the sketch plan for a period not to exceed one year from 10

the original date of expiration upon receipt of a written request made for good cause not 11

less than 15 days before the expiration of the sketch plan approval. A SKETCH PLAN SHALL 12

BECOME VOID IF AN APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL BECOMES VOID PURSUANT 13

TO § 17-3-303(D) OR IF AN APPROVED FINAL PLAN BECOMES VOID. Upon [[expiration of]] a 14

sketch plan EXPIRING OR BECOMING VOID, the developer shall file a new sketch plan 15

application and pay THE required fees prior to further review. 16

17

17-3-303 Review process. 18

19

(b) Further comments by the County; further developer re-submittals. After the 20

developer files a final plan re-submittal, the Office of Planning and Zoning shall provide 21

promptly, or within [[30]] 60 days for an application for a minor subdivision or amended 22

plat, any further findings, comments, and recommendations of the County through its 23

reviewing agencies, and shall attempt to resolve inconsistencies or conflicts among the 24

agency comments. Within [[60]] 90 days after the date the report is mailed, the developer 25

shall file a final plan re-submittal that addresses the findings, comments, and 26

recommendations. This process continues unless the application becomes void under 27

subsection (d) or action is taken on the application under subsection (f). 28

29

(c) Authority to extend time periods. 30

31

(1) Upon receipt of a written request not less than 10 days before the re-submittal 32

deadline in subsections (a) or (b), the Office of Planning and Zoning may grant a time 33

extension for re-submittal not to exceed 180 days. 34

35


deadline in subsections (a) or (b), and upon a determination by the Planning and Zoning 37

Officer that good cause is shown, the Office of Planning and Zoning may grant a second 38

time extension for re-submittal not to exceed [[120]] 180 days. 39

40


deadline in this subsection, and upon a determination by the Planning and Zoning Officer 42



45



Bill No. 86-20

Page No. 4

17-3-304 Completion of subdivision. 1

2

(a) Action required by developer within eighteen months. Within [[12]] 18 months 3

after the date of approval of a final plan, a developer shall: 4

5

(1) satisfactorily address all remaining comments of the Office of Planning and 6

Zoning and reviewing agencies; and 7

8

(2) prepare, execute, and deliver at one time a forestation agreement, a digital copy 9

of the proposed record plat that satisfies digital plat specifications posted on the County 10

website, and all other deeds, easements, rights-of-way, bonds, fees, homeowners 11

association and community association documents, and other documents required by this 12

article. 13

14

(e) Effect of failure to meet time requirement. An application for final plan approval 15

and the approval of a final plan are void if the developer fails to complete the actions 16

required by subsection (a) within 12 months after the date of final plan approval or within 17

the time specified by the Office of Planning and Zoning under subsection (c). IF AN 18

APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL OR AN APPROVED FINAL PLAN BECOMES VOID, 19

ANY UNDERLYING SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL SHALL ALSO BECOME VOID. 20

21

TITLE 4. SITE DEVELOPMENT 22

23

17-4-101. Scope. 24

25

(A) Generally. This title applies to site development only [[and does not apply to a 26

tenant permit in a structure previously approved by the County, permits relating to a final 27

infrastructure construction plan and lot clearing shown on an approved final plan 28

previously approved under this article, permits relating to improvements that do not result 29

in leasable space, a test for adequacy of public facilities, or, with the exception of property 30

in the critical area or designated bog area, an increase of impervious surface of no more 31

than 1,000 square feet and, at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Officer, a grading 32

permit that contains or is accompanied by all information required by this article]]. 33

34

(B) Exemptions. THIS TITLE DOES NOT APPLY TO: 35

36

(1) AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY OR AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY I, 37

COMMUNITY BASED WITH 8 BEDS OR LESS IN A NEW OR EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY 38

DWELLING; 39

40

(2) A GROUP HOME I OR A GROUP HOME II IN A NEW OR EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY 41

DWELLING; 42

43

(3) SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS ON EXISTING PLATTED RESIDENTIAL 44

LOTS; 45

46

(4) A TEMPORARY USE AUTHORIZED UNDER § 18-2-203 OF THIS CODE, PROVIDED NO 47

MORE THAN 15 EVENTS LASTING NO LONGER THAN ONE DAY ARE HELD ON THE SAME 48

PROPERTY WITHIN A TWELVE-MONTH PERIOD; 49

Bill No. 86-20

Page No. 5

(5) A TENANT PERMIT IN A STRUCTURE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE COUNTY, 1

WHERE PARKING AND OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE USE 2

AND ANY OTHER EXISTING USES ON THE SITE; 3

4

(6) A PERMIT RELATING TO A FINAL INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION PLAN AND 5

LOT CLEARING SHOWN ON AN APPROVED FINAL PLAN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED UNDER 6

THIS ARTICLE; 7

8

(7) A PERMIT RELATING TO IMPROVEMENTS THAT DO NOT RESULT IN LEASABLE 9

SPACE; 10

11

(8) A PERMIT OR A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION THAT DOES NOT RESULT IN A TEST 12

FOR ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES; 13

14

(9) A SEASONAL OR PERMANENT OUTDOOR RESTAURANT SEATING AREA OF 10 15

SEATS OR LESS; 16

17

(10) A CUMULATIVE INCREASE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OF NO MORE THAN 5,000 18

SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTY OUTSIDE OF THE CRITICAL AREA OR DESIGNATED BOG AREA 19

AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF BILL NO. 86-20; 20

21

(11) A NONRESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL BUILDING THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE A 22

PERMIT UNDER § 105.2.1.14 OF THE CONSTRUCTION CODE OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY; OR 23

24

(12) AN ACCESSORY USE AS A PRODUCE MARKET CONSISTING OF UP TO 1,200 25

SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA. 26

27

17-4-201. Preliminary plan. 28

29

(a) Generally. A developer shall file a preliminary plan prior to submitting an 30

application for a site development plan and prior to submitting an application for a grading 31

or building permit. A developer shall also file with the Office of Planning and Zoning a 32

preliminary plan for development that does not require a permit. A PRELIMINARY PLAN IS 33

NOT REQUIRED FOR: 34

35

(1) AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR EXPANSION OF FLOOR AREA OR OTHER SITE 36

IMPROVEMENTS OR USE CHANGES IN DEVELOPMENTS EXISTING AS OF THE EFFECTIVE 37

DATE OF BILL NO. 86-20 FOR WHICH THE PROPOSED CUMULATIVE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE 38

OF IS LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET; 39

40

(2) A SITE WITH EXISTING IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE OF 40% OR MORE FOR WHICH 41

THE DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIONS AND PERMITS HAS APPROVED A CONCEPT PLAN FOR 42

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT; OR 43

44

(3) A DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE PAROLE TOWN CENTER GROWTH MANAGEMENT 45

AREA OR THE ODENTON GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREA. 46

47

(b) Contents. A preliminary plan shall be on a 24” x 36” sheet at a scale that is no 48

GREATER THAN 1” = 40’ AND NO smaller than [[1”=100']] 1” = 60’ and shall contain all 49

information including attachments as required on the most recent preliminary plan 50

[[checklist]] SUBMITTAL AND CHECKLISTS on file at the Office of Planning and Zoning or 51

Department of Inspections and Permits. The preliminary plan shall show [[an initial 52

location of development, including roads, buildings, parking, stormwater management, 53

utilities, and forest conservation, and shall provide]] any [[other]] information required by 54

Bill No. 86-20

Page No. 6

the Office of Planning and Zoning and the Department of Inspections and Permits to clearly 1

identify areas on the site that are suitable for development. 2

3

(c) Review; County report; developer re-submittal. As promptly as possible after 4

the filing of a preliminary plan, the Office of Planning and Zoning shall provide TO the 5

developer [[with]], THE DEVELOPER’S REPRESENTATIVES, AND ALL REVIEWING AGENCIES 6

a written report of the findings, comments, and recommendations of THE County THROUGH 7

ITS REVIEWING agencies. [[Upon review of a completed preliminary plan the Office of 8

Planning and Zoning will provide the developer with a written decision approving or 9

denying the application. That approval or denial will resolve inconsistencies or conflicts 10

among the agency comments and give the applicant direction on how to proceed to the next 11

step in the process or give direction on what issues need to be addressed with a new 12

application for a preliminary plan]] THE PRELIMINARY PLAN REPORT SHALL ATTEMPT TO 13

RESOLVE INCONSISTENCIES OR CONFLICTS AMONG THE AGENCY COMMENTS. WITHIN 90 14

DAYS AFTER THE DATE THE PRELIMINARY PLAN REPORT IS MAILED, THE DEVELOPER 15

SHALL FILE A RE-SUBMITTAL THAT ADDRESSES ALL OF THE FINDINGS, COMMENTS, AND 16

RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE REPORT. AFTER THE DEVELOPER FILES A 17

PRELIMINARY PLAN RE-SUBMITTAL, THE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND ZONING SHALL 18

PROMPTLY PROVIDE ANY FURTHER FINDINGS, COMMENTS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 19

FROM THE COUNTY REVIEWING AGENCIES, AND SHALL ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE 20

INCONSISTENCIES OR CONFLICTS AMONG THE AGENCY COMMENTS. WITHIN 90 DAYS 21

AFTER THE DATE THE REPORT IS MAILED, THE DEVELOPER SHALL FILE A PRELIMINARY 22

PLAN RE-SUBMITTAL THAT ADDRESSES THE FINDINGS, COMMENTS, AND 23

RECOMMENDATION. THIS PROCESS CONTINUES UNTIL THE APPLICATION BECOMES VOID 24

UNDER SUBSECTION (E) OR A DECISION IS PROVIDED UNDER SUBSECTION (F). 25

26

(D) Authority to extend time periods. 27

28

(1) UPON RECEIPT OF A WRITTEN REQUEST NOT LESS THAN 10 DAYS BEFORE THE 29

RE-SUBMITTAL DEADLINE IN SUBSECTION (C), THE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND ZONING 30

MAY GRANT A TIME EXTENSION FOR RE-SUBMITTAL NOT TO EXCEED 180 DAYS. 31

32

(2) UPON RECEIPT OF A WRITTEN REQUEST NOT LESS THAN 10 DAYS BEFORE A 33

RE-SUBMITTAL DEADLINE IN SUBSECTIONS (C) AND UPON A DETERMINATION BY THE 34

PLANNING AND ZONING OFFICER THAT GOOD CAUSE IS SHOWN, THE OFFICE OF PLANNING 35

AND ZONING MAY GRANT A SECOND TIME EXTENSION FOR RE-SUBMITTAL NOT TO 36

EXCEED 180 DAYS. 37

38

(3) AFTER A SECOND TIME EXTENSION, ANY FURTHER EXTENSIONS REQUIRE A 39

MODIFICATION PURSUANT TO § 17-2-108. 40

41

(E) Action on the application. AT ANY TIME AFTER THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION 42

FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL, THE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND ZONING MAY DENY 43

THE APPLICATION FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE OR 44

OTHER APPLICABLE LAW. OTHERWISE, THE OFFICE SHALL APPROVE THE APPLICATION 45

FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN. 46

47

[[(d)]] (F) Expiration of preliminary plan. A preliminary plan expires [[12]] 18 48

months after the date that the Office of Planning and Zoning approves the preliminary plan 49

unless a site development plan is submitted for review prior to preliminary plan expiration. 50

NOTWITHSTANDING ANY EXTENSIONS OR MODIFICATIONS GRANTED TO ALLOW FOR 51

ADDITIONAL TIME TO COMPLETE A PRELIMINARY PLAN, UPON RECEIPT OF A WRITTEN 52

REQUEST NOT LESS THAN 15 DAYS BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAN 53

APPROVAL, THE PLANNING AND ZONING OFFICER MAY EXTEND APPROVAL OF THE 54

Bill No. 86-20

Page No. 7

PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED ONE YEAR FROM THE ORIGINAL DATE 1

OF EXPIRATION. A PRELIMINARY PLAN SHALL BECOME VOID IF AN APPLICATION FOR 2

FINAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL BECOMES VOID PURSUANT TO § 17-4-203(C) 3

OR IF AN APPROVED FINAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BECOMES VOID. Upon expiration of 4

the preliminary plan [[a]], THE developer shall file a new PRELIMINARY PLAN application 5

and PAY THE REQUIRED fees [[for a preliminary plan application]] prior to any further 6

review. 7

8

[[(e)]] (G) Exemption from bicycle, pedestrian, and transit assessment. The 9

following subdivisions or developments may opt to pay bicycle, pedestrian, and transit 10

infrastructure fees in lieu of preparing a bicycle, pedestrian, and transit assessment: 11

12

(1) subdivisions of five or fewer dwelling units; 13

14

(2) non-residential developments comprising less than 5,000 enclosed square feet, 15

other than warehouse developments; and 16

17

(3) warehouse developments comprising less than 15,000 enclosed square feet. 18

19

17-4-202. Site Development Plan. 20

21

(a) Generally. A developer shall file a site development plan with an application for 22

[[a building or grading permit other than a permit relating to a final infrastructure 23

construction plan]] ALL PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT THAT DOES NOT MEET THE 24

EXEMPTIONS PROVIDED UNDER THE SCOPE OF THIS TITLE. A developer shall also file with 25

the Office of Planning and Zoning a site development plan for development that does not 26

require a permit. 27

28

(B) Contents. A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHALL BE ON A 24” X 36” SHEET AT A SCALE 29

THAT IS NO GREATER THAN 1” = 40’ AND NO SMALLER THAN 1” = 60’ AND SHALL CONTAIN 30

ALL INFORMATION INCLUDING ATTACHMENTS AS REQUIRED ON THE MOST RECENT SITE 31

DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL AND PLAN CHECKLISTS ON FILE AT THE OFFICE OF 32

PLANNING AND ZONING OR DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIONS AND PERMITS. THE SITE 33

DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHALL SHOW ANY INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE OFFICE OF 34

PLANNING AND ZONING AND THE DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIONS AND PERMITS TO 35

CLEARLY DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY OF DEVELOPMENT UNDER THIS CODE. 36

37

17-4-203. Site Development Plan review process. 38

39

(a) County report; developer re-submittal. As promptly as possible after the filing 40

of a site development plan, [[but not later than 15 days prior to the Comment Review 41

Committee meeting if required by subsection (b), the Office of Planning and Zoning shall 42

provide to the developer, the developer’s representatives and all reviewing agencies, a 43

written report of the findings, comments, and recommendations of the County through its 44

reviewing agencies, and if applicable a notice of the date, time and location of the Comment 45

Review Committee meeting]] THE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND ZONING SHALL PROVIDE TO 46

THE DEVELOPER, THE DEVELOPER’S REPRESENTATIVES, AND ALL REVIEWING AGENCIES 47

A WRITTEN REPORT OF THE FINDINGS, COMMENTS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 48

COUNTY THROUGH ITS REVIEWING AGENCIES. The site development plan report shall 49

attempt to resolve inconsistencies or conflicts among the agency comments. Within [[60]] 50

90 days after the date the site development plan report is mailed, the developer shall file a 51

Bill No. 86-20

Page No. 8

re-submittal that addresses all the findings, comments, and recommendations contained in 1

the report. After the developer files a site development plan re-submittal, the Office of 2

Planning and Zoning shall PROMPTLY provide [[promptly]] any further findings, 3

comments, and recommendations from the County reviewing agencies, and shall attempt 4

to resolve inconsistencies or conflicts among the agency comments. Within [[60]] 90 days 5

after the date the report is mailed, the developer shall file a site development plan re-6

submittal that addresses the findings, comments, and recommendations. This process 7

continues until the application becomes void under subsection [[(b)]] (C) or a 8

recommendation is made under subsection [[(f)]] (E). 9

10

[[(c)]] (B) Site Development Time Extensions. 11

12

(1) Upon receipt of a written request not less than 10 days before the re-submittal 13

deadline in subsection (a) the Office of Planning and Zoning may grant a time extension 14

for re-submittal not to exceed 180 days. 15

16


deadline in [[subsections]] SUBSECTION (a) [[or (b)]], and upon a determination by the 18

Planning and Zoning Officer that good cause is shown, the Office of Planning and Zoning 19

may grant a second time extension for re-submittal not to exceed [[120]] 180 days. 20

21


deadline in this subsection, and upon a determination by the Planning and Zoning Officer 23



26



29

[[(5)]] (C) Voiding of site development plan. A site development plan is void and 30

a new application fee for site development plan approval shall be paid for the next submittal 31

if the developer fails to file site development plan re-submittals within the time periods 32

required by this section. IF AN APPLICATION FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL OR 33

AN APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BECOMES VOID, ANY UNDERLYING 34

PRELIMINARY PLAN SHALL ALSO BECOME VOID. 35

36

17-4-207. Expiration of site development plan. 37

38

(a) In connection with a permit. A site development plan associated with an 39

application for a building or grading permit expires [[one year]] 18 MONTHS after the date 40

that the Office of Planning and Zoning recommends permit approval, or [[upon the 41

expiration of some other period of time, not to exceed six years,]] as provided in a [[sketch 42

or]] site development plan approval letter from the Planning and Zoning Officer. 43

Notwithstanding any modifications granted to allow for additional time to complete site 44

development, the Planning and Zoning Officer may extend the approval of the site 45

development plan for a period not to exceed one year from the original date of expiration 46

of site development plan approval upon receipt of a written request made for good cause 47

not less than 15 days before the expiration of the site development plan approval, provided 48

the total period of all extensions does not exceed six years from the date the Office of 49

Bill No. 86-20

Page No. 9

Planning and Zoning recommends permit approval. The developer shall obtain all required 1

permits within the period prescribed by this subsection and site development shall be 2

pursuant to valid permits. 3

4

(b) Not in connection with a permit. A site development plan not associated with an 5

application for a building or grading permit expires two years after the date that the Office 6

of Planning and Zoning approves the plan, or upon the expiration of some other time, not 7

to exceed six years, as provided in a sketch or site development plan approval letter from 8

the Planning and Zoning Officer, unless the developer establishes the use within the period 9

prescribed by this subsection. 10

11

(c) Notice of expiration. The Office of Planning and Zoning shall provide the date of 12

expiration of approval of a site development plan as well as information on the extension 13

process [[and any applicable fee to the developer on the initial approval of the plan]] WITH 14

THE LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION OR APPROVAL. 15

16

SUBTITLE 3. REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS. 17

18

17-4-301. Reservation of land for public facilities. 19

20

(A) Land needed for public facilities. THE PLANNING AND ZONING OFFICER MAY 21

REQUIRE THAT LAND SHOWN ON A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BE RESERVED FOR 22

ACQUISITION BY THE COUNTY OR THE BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR USE AS A PARK, 23

COUNTY OR STATE MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE, SCHOOL, 24

COUNTY OR STATE ROAD, OR OTHER PUBLIC FACILITY, IF THE PLANNING AND ZONING 25

OFFICER DETERMINES AFTER RECEIPT OF A WRITTEN REQUEST FROM A DEPARTMENT OR 26

OTHER PUBLIC ENTITY CHARGED WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FACILITY THAT THE 27

LAND IS NEEDED AND THE FACILITY IS FUNDED IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 28

OF THE COUNTY OR STATE. 29

30

(B) Conditions. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO LAND RESERVED UNDER THIS 31

SECTION: 32

33

(1) THE DEVELOPER AND OWNERS OF ALL LAND RESERVED SHALL ENTER INTO A 34

RESERVATION AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE COUNTY, 35

WHICH SHALL BE RECORDED IN THE LAND RECORDS; 36

37

(2) A RESERVATION MAY NOT CONTINUE FOR LONGER THAN THREE YEARS FROM 38

THE DATE OF RECORDATION OF THE RESERVATION AGREEMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN 39

APPROVAL FROM ALL OWNERS OF THE LAND RESERVED; 40

41

(3) THE PERIOD OF TIME FOR WHICH THE LAND IS RESERVED SHALL BE SPECIFIED 42

IN THE RESERVATION AGREEMENT; AND 43

44

(4) THE LAND SHALL REMAIN IN ITS NATURAL STATE AND UNDEVELOPED DURING 45

THE RESERVATION PERIOD, EXCEPT THAT THE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND ZONING MAY 46

APPROVE USE OF THE LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES OR FOR TEMPORARY USES 47

AUTHORIZED BY ARTICLE 18 OF THIS CODE. 48

49

(C) Value. WHEN LAND IS RESERVED UNDER THIS SECTION, ACQUISITION OF THE 50

RESERVED LAND MAY BE: 51

52

(1) IN CONSIDERATION OF DENSITY TRANSFERRED FROM THE RESERVED LAND TO 53

ABUTTING OR ADJACENT LAND UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP; OR 54

Bill No. 86-20

Page No. 10

(2) AT THE UNIMPROVED VALUE OF THE LAND BEFORE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLUS 1

EXPENSES FOR TAXES AND MAINTENANCE ONLY WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6%. 2

3

17-4-302. Acceptance of land or improvements for public purpose. 4

5

THE APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BY THE PLANNING AND 6

ZONING OFFICER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE OR IMPLY THE ACCEPTANCE BY THE COUNTY OF 7

ANY ROAD, RIGHT-OF-WAY, EASEMENT, OR FACILITY. ACCEPTANCE SHALL OCCUR ONLY 8

AFTER ALL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY A PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT HAVE 9

BEEN COMPLETED AND APPROVED AND ACCEPTED BY THE COUNTY. 10

11

TITLE 5. ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES 12

13

17-5-203. Duration of approval – Subdivisions other than minor subdivisions. 14

15

(a) Conditions to be met to retain approval. Unless the Planning and Zoning Officer 16

has determined to postpone the test for adequacy of public facilities to final plan review 17

for a development in the Odenton Growth Management Area pursuant to § 17-5-202(a)(2), 18

upon the approval of a sketch plan for a subdivision other than a minor subdivision, no 19

further approval for adequacy of public facilities, other than fire suppression facilities, is 20

required if: 21

22

(1) the developer files an application for final plan approval within [[one year]] 18 23

MONTHS after the date of sketch plan approval or as extended by the Planning and Zoning 24

Officer; 25

26

(2) the final plan is approved and a proposed record plat meeting the requirements 27

of the final plan approval is submitted to the County as required under § 17-3-304(a) within 28

[[12]] 18 months after the date of final plan approval or within the time specified by the 29

Planning and Zoning Officer under § 17-3-304(d); 30

31

(3) simultaneously with the approval of the plat or no later than [[twelve]] 18 32

months after the date the record plat is recorded, the developer executes and delivers to the 33

County a public works agreement for any proposed mitigation; and 34

35

(4) the impact of the subdivision does not exceed the impact in the original study 36

that formed the basis for passing a test. 37

38

(b) Effect of failure to file to meet time requirements. Except as provided in 39

subsection (c), when a subdivision has met the requirements for adequate public facilities 40

during sketch plan review and the time requirements of subsection (a) are not met, the 41

proposed subdivision plan AND SKETCH PLAN ARE [[is]] void unless the Planning and 42

Zoning Officer grants a modification to allow for additional time to complete the 43

subdivision. The Planning and Zoning Officer may not grant a modification to a developer 44

who has failed to respond to County comments as required by this article. 45

Bill No. 86-20

Page No. 11

17-5-204. Duration of approval – Minor subdivisions. 1

2

(a) Conditions to be met to retain approval. Upon the approval of a final plan for a 3

minor subdivision, no further approval for adequacy of public facilities, other than fire 4

suppression facilities, is required if: 5

6

(1) the final plan is approved and a record plat meeting the requirements of the final 7

plan approval is submitted to the County as required under § 17-3-304(a) within [[12]] 18 8

months after the date of final plan approval or within the time specified by the Office of 9

Planning and Zoning under § 17-3-304(d); 10

11

(2) simultaneously with the approval of the plat or no later than [[twelve]] 18 12

months after the date the record plat is recorded, the developer executes and delivers to the 13

County a public works agreement for any proposed mitigation; and 14

15

(3) the impact of the subdivision does not exceed the impact in the original study 16

that formed the basis for passing a test. 17

18

(b) Effect of failure to meet time requirement. Except as provided in subsection (c), 19

when a subdivision has met the requirements for adequate public facilities during final plan 20

review and the time requirement of subsection (a) is not met, the proposed subdivision plan 21

AND SKETCH PLAN ARE [[is]] void unless the Planning and Zoning Officer grants a 22

modification to allow for additional time to complete the subdivision. The Planning and 23

Zoning Officer may not grant a modification to a developer who has failed to respond to 24

County comments as required by this article. 25

26

17-5-205. Duration of approval – Preliminary Plan or Site development plan. 27

28

(b) Effect of failure to meet time requirement. Except as provided in subsection (c), 29

when a development has met the requirements for adequate public facilities during site 30

development plan review and the time requirement of subsection (a) is not met, the 31

proposed site development plan AND PRELIMINARY PLAN ARE [[is]] void unless the 32

Planning and Zoning Officer grants a modification to allow for additional time to complete 33

site development. The Planning and Zoning Officer may not grant a modification to a 34

developer who has failed to respond to County comments as required by this article. 35

36

SECTION 4. And be it further enacted, That all references in this Ordinance to “the 37

effective date of Bill No. 86-20” or words to that effect, shall, upon codification, be 38

replaced with the actual date on which this Ordinance takes effect under Section 307 of the 39

County Charter as certified by the Administrative Officer to the County Council. 40

41



_____________________________________________________________________________________






Bill No. 87-20

Introduced by Ms. Fiedler


________________________________________________________________________





________________________________________________________________________

A BILL ENTITLED

AN ORDINANCE concerning: Public Safety and Zoning – Pet Care Businesses and 1

Commercial Kennels 2

3

FOR the purpose of amending the definition of “pet care business” to include the training 4

of pets; amending the definition of “commercial kennels” to include the training of 5

dogs, cats, or other domesticated animals; and generally relating to public safety and 6

zoning. 7

8

BY repealing and reenacting, with amendments: §§ 12-4-101(35); and 18-1-101(68) 9


11



14

ARTICLE 12. PUBLIC SAFETY 15

16

TITLE 4. ANIMAL CONTROL 17

18

12-4-101. Definitions.19

20

In this title, the following words have the meanings indicated:21

22

*** 23

PROPOSED

Bill No. 87-20

Page No. 2

(35) “Pet care business” means the temporary keeping of pets owned by others in a 1

residence for a fee, including day care, [[or]] boarding, OR TRAINING, but not pet grooming. 2

3

*** 4

5

ARTICLE 18. ZONING 6

7

TITLE 1. DEFINITIONS 8

9

18-1-101. Definitions. 10

11

Unless defined in this article, the Natural Resources Article of the State Code, or 12

COMAR, words defined elsewhere in this Code apply in this article. The following words 13

have the meanings indicated: 14

15

*** 16

17

(68) “Kennel, commercial” means a facility for the housing of dogs, cats, or other 18

domesticated animals for the purpose of commercial breeding, sale, boarding, TRAINING, 19

or grooming. 20

21

*** 22

23



COUNTY COUNCIL OF

LEGISLATIVE SUMMARY*

To: All Councilmembers of the Anne Arundel County Council

From: Linda M. Schuett, Legislative Counsel


Subject: Bill No. 87-20

______________________________________________________________________________

Bill No. 87-20 allows a pet care business to include not only day care or boarding but also

training. The definition of “pet care business” is contained in § 12-4-101 of the Code relating to

Animal Control. However, the term is also used, without a definition, in § 18-10-130(3)(xvi) of

the Code relating to home occupations. The intent is to allow a pet care business that includes

training as a home occupation, so long as all other requirements for the use are met.

The Bill also includes training within the definition of a “commercial kennel,” as contained in

§ 18-1-101 of the Code.

* This Legislative Summary provides a synopsis of the bill as introduced. It does not address

subsequent amendments to the bill.

_____________________________________________________________________________________






Bill No. 88-20

Introduced by Ms. Haire


________________________________________________________________________





________________________________________________________________________

A BILL ENTITLED

AN ORDINANCE concerning: Zoning – Identification Signs on Automobile Gasoline 1

Station Canopies 2

3

FOR the purpose of allowing a certain number and size of identification signs on canopies 4

at automobile gasoline stations located in business complexes and commercial and 5

industrial districts; and generally relating to zoning. 6

7

BY repealing and reenacting, with amendments: §§ 18-3-308(b)(6); and 18-3-309(c)(4) 8


10



13

ARTICLE 18. ZONING 14

15

TITLE 3. PARKING, NONRESIDENTIAL OUTDOOR LIGHTING, AND 16

SIGNAGE 17

18

18-3-308. Signs for business complexes.19

20

(b) Identification signs. A business complex may have:21

22

***23

PROPOSED

Bill No. 88-20

Page No. 2

(6) [[one]] NO MORE THAN THREE identification signs on a canopy over a group of 1

gas pumps at an automobile gasoline station, so long as the area of the sign does not exceed 2

[[12]] 25 square feet. 3

4

18-3-309. Signs in commercial and industrial districts for uses other than dwellings 5

and business complexes. 6

7

(c) Identification signs. An establishment may have: 8

9

*** 10

11

(4) [[one]] NO MORE THAN THREE identification signs on a canopy over a group of 12

gas pumps at an automobile gasoline station, so long as the area of the sign does not exceed 13

[[12]] 25 square feet. 14

15



COUNTY COUNCIL OF

LEGISLATIVE SUMMARY*

To: All Councilmembers of the Anne Arundel County Council

From: Linda M. Schuett, Legislative Counsel


Subject: Bill No. 88-20

______________________________________________________________________________

Bill No. 88-20 amends the number and size of identification signs on a canopy over a group of

gas pumps at an automobile gasoline station located in a business complex or in commercial and

districts for uses other than dwellings and business complexes. Specifically, the Bill allows three

identification signs so long as the area of the sign does not exceed 25 square feet.

* This Legislative Summary provides a synopsis of the bill as introduced. It does not address

subsequent amendments to the bill.



Resolution No. 40-20



and by Ms. Pickard


RESOLUTION approving the nomination of a member to the Anne Arundel County 1

Human Relations Commission 2

3

WHEREAS, Section 3-5A-101 of the County Code provides that there is a Human 4

Relations Commission to be known as the Anne Arundel County Human Relations 5

Commission (“Commission”); and 6

7

WHEREAS, Section 3-5A-102 of the County Code provides that the purpose of the 8

Commission is to promote and enhance the ability of all Anne Arundel County 9

residents to pursue their lives free of discrimination in housing; and 10

11

WHEREAS, Section 3-5A-103 of the County Code provides that the Commission 12

shall consist of 11 voting members, nominated by the County Executive and 13

approved by resolution of the County Council; and 14

15

WHEREAS, Section 3-5A-103 of the County Code further provides that seven of 16

the members shall be residents of the County, with one from each councilmanic 17

district and recommended by the County Council member of the district; and 18

19

WHEREAS, Section 3-5A-104 of the County Code provides that the initial terms 20

of the members shall be staggered so that four members shall serve initial terms of 21

one year, four members shall serve initial terms of two years, and three members 22

shall serve initial terms of three years; and 23

24

WHEREAS, Section 3-5A-104(c) of the County Code provides vacancies shall be 25

filled for an unexpired term in the manner of original appointment; and 26

27

WHEREAS, Pastor John Watts, the member from District 2, was approved to serve 28

an initial two year term commencing on November 18, 2019, and ending on 29

November 17, 2021; and 30

31

WHEREAS, Pastor John Watts resigned on August 31, 2020, and his position 32

remains vacant; and 33

34

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3-5A-103(a)(1) of the County Code, the 35

Councilmember from District 2 has recommended and the County Executive has 36


Page No. 2

nominated, subject to approval by the County Council, Lakisha Hatcher, a resident 1

of District 2, serve the remainder of a term ending on November 17, 2021; and 2

3

WHEREAS, the County Council, after public hearing, finds that Lakisha Hatcher 4

meets the eligibility requirements under Section 3-5A-103(a) of the County Code 5

and is qualified to serve on the Commission; now, therefore, be it 6

7

Resolved by the County Council of Anne Arundel County, Maryland, That it hereby 8

approves the nomination to the Anne Arundel County Human Relations Commission of 9

Lakisha Hatcher to serve as the representative from District 2 for the remainder of a term 10

ending on November 17, 2022; and be it further 11

12

Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution be sent to Steuart Pittman, County Executive; 13

Kaley Schultze, Boards and Commissions Coordinator and Legislative Assistant; and 14

nominee Lakisha Hatcher. 15

Note: This Legislative Summary provides a synopsis of the bill as introduced. It does not address subsequent

amendments to the bill.

Gregory J. Swain, County Attorney

MEMORANDUM

To: Members, Anne Arundel County Council

From: Christine B. Neiderer, Assistant County Attorney /s/

Via: Gregory J. Swain, County Attorney /s/


Subject: Resolution No. 40-20

______________________________________________________________________________

Legislative Summary

This summary was prepared by the Anne Arundel County Office of Law for use by

members of the Anne Arundel County Council during consideration of Resolution No. 40-20,

which approves the County Executive’s nomination to the Anne Arundel County Human Relations

Commission (“Commission”).

Background. Bill No. 57-19 created the Commission. The purpose of the Commission is

to promote and enhance the ability of residents to pursue their lives free of discrimination in

housing.

The Commission consists of 11 voting members, all of whom are residents of the County,

nominated by the County Executive and approved by resolution of the County Council. Of the

voting members, seven of the members are from each of the seven Councilmanic Districts and are

recommended by the County Council member from the District; four members are recommended

by the County Executive; at least four of the members must reflect the County’s ethnic and

minority diversity; and at least one member must be trained in or have experience with mediation.

The initial terms of the members are staggered so that four members serve initial terms of

one year, four members serve initial terms of two years, and three members serve initial terms of

three years. In addition, vacancies are filled for an unexpired term in the manner of original

appointment.

Pastor John Watts, a resident of District 2, was approved to serve an initial two year term

Legislative Summary – Resolution No. 40-20

Page No. 2

commencing on November 18, 2019, and ending on November 17, 2021. He resigned on August

31, 2020, and his position remains vacant.

Proposed legislation. Councilwoman Pickard recommended Lakisha Hatcher, a resident

of District 2. The County Executive, subject to approval by the County Council, has nominated

Ms. Hatcher to serve the remainder of a term ending on November 17, 2021. This legislation

approves the County Executive’s nomination to the Commission.

The Office of Law is available to answer any additional questions regarding Resolution

No. 40-20. Thank you.

cc: Honorable Steuart Pittman, County Executive

Matthew Power, Chief Administrative Officer

Peter Baron, Legislative Liaison

Kaley Schultze, Boards and Commissions Coordinator & Legislative Assistant

Jim Beauchamp, Budget Officer




Introduced by Ms. Rodvien


RESOLUTION recognizing Monday, October 12, 2020 as Indigenous Peoples’ Day in 1

Anne Arundel County 2

3

WHEREAS, in 1937, the United States government, in response to intense lobbying 4

by the Knights of Columbus, proclaimed October 12 to be Columbus Day; and 5

6

WHEREAS, the Italian-born explorer Christopher Columbus never set foot on the 7

shores of the current United States; and 8

9

WHEREAS, millions of indigenous and native people were already living in North 10

America upon Columbus’ arrival to the Americas in 1492; and 11

12

WHEREAS, throughout his years in the Americas, Columbus enslaved, colonized, 13

massacred, and ultimately marginalized thousands of indigenous and native people; 14

and 15

16

WHEREAS, for Native Americans, Columbus Day has long been a painful 17

reminder of hundreds of years of colonial oppression at the hands of European 18

explorers and settlers and those wounds still run deep today; and 19

20

WHEREAS, Native Americans have had a tremendous effect on American life 21

today, including the areas of art and music, law and government, and conservation 22

and environmental sustainability, and without the knowledge and influence of the 23

Native Americans our country would not be what it is today; and 24

25

WHEREAS, since 1991, dozens of cities, several universities, and a growing 26

number of states have adopted Indigenous Peoples’ Day as a holiday that celebrates 27

the history and contributions of Native Americans; and 28

29

WHEREAS, Indigenous Peoples’ Day is observed on the second Monday in the 30

month of October every year by the states of Minnesota, Alaska, Maine, Louisiana, 31

Oregon, New Mexico, Nevada, and Vermont, as well as South Dakota, which 32

celebrates Native Americans’ Day, and Hawaii, which celebrates Discoverers’ 33

Day; and 34

35

WHEREAS, honoring Columbus as a hero disregards the painful legacy of violence 36

and brutality inflicted upon the indigenous and native people of the Americas; now, 37

therefore, be it 38


Page No. 2

Resolved by the County Council of Anne Arundel County, Maryland, That it hereby 1

recognizes Monday, October 12, 2020 as Indigenous Peoples’ Day in Anne Arundel 2

County and calls upon the people of Anne Arundel County to join their fellow citizens in 3

recognizing this special observance; and be it further 4

5

Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution be sent to County Executive Steuart Pittman. 6

AMENDMENT TO BILL NO. 69-20

(Zoning – Farm or Agricultural Heritage Site Stays and Special Events)

October 5, 2020


Amendment No. 1

On page 1 of the proposed bill, strike in their entirety lines 18 through 27, inclusive and

substitute:

“(B) Farm or Agricultural Heritage Site Special Events, one to eight annual events. THE

PLANNING AND ZONING OFFICER MAY AUTHORIZE UP TO EIGHT FARM OR AGRICULTURAL

HERITAGE SITE SPECIAL EVENTS ON A PROPERTY IN THE RA, RLD, OR R1 ZONING DISTRICTS AS A

TEMPORARY USE IF:

1. THE PLANNING AND ZONING OFFICER DETERMINES THAT THE EVENT WILL NOT

ADVERSELY AFFECT NEARBY PROPERTIES AND WILL NOT REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT OR PERMANENT

CHANGES TO EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, VEGETATION, OR OTHER NATURAL FEATURES;

2. NO MORE THAN EIGHT EVENTS ON THE SAME PROPERTY WITHIN A 12-MONTH PERIOD

ARE AUTHORIZED;

3. AUTHORIZATION IS GIVEN FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL EVENT TO BE HELD ON A PROPERTY;

AND

4. AN EVENT WILL NOT EXCEED ONE DAY.”.

(This technical amendment restructures a new provision that will allow farm or agricultural

heritage site special events as temporary uses in certain residential districts.)



October 5, 2020


Amendment No. 2


substitute:




TEMPORARY USE IF:





ARE AUTHORIZED;


AND

4. AN EVENT WILL NOT EXCEED ONE DAY; AND

5. ANY OUTDOOR ASSEMBLY AREAS ARE LOCATED AND DESIGNED TO SHIELD

SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES FROM THE EFFECTS OF NOISE, HAZARDS, OR OTHER

OFFENSIVE CONDITIONS.”.

(This amendment allows a farm or agricultural heritage site special event as a temporary use in

certain residential districts if additional standards to mitigate the effect of noise, hazards, or other

offensive factors on nearby properties are met.)



October 5, 2020


Amendment No. 3


substitute:




TEMPORARY USE IF:





ARE AUTHORIZED;


AND

4. AN EVENT WILL NOT EXCEED ONE DAY; AND

5. THE MAXIMUM CAPACITY FOR AN EVENT WILL NOT EXCEED 25 ATTENDEES PER ACRE.”.

(This amendment allows a farm or agricultural heritage site special event as a temporary use in

certain residential districts if a certain maximum attendee capacity is met.)


(Licenses and Registrations – Unattended Donation Boxes)

October 5, 2020

Introduced by Mr. Volke

Amendment No. 1

On page 2 of the proposed bill, in line 40, strike “AND”; in line 43, strike the period and

substitute “; AND”; and after line 43, insert:

“(4) PROOF OF THE OPERATOR’S 501(C)(3) NON-PROFIT STATUS, IF APPLICABLE.”.

(This amendment requires a non-profit operator of an unattended donation box to provide proof

of its 501(c)(3) status.)



October 5, 2020


Amendment No. 2

On page 1 of the proposed bill, in line 5 after the semi-colon insert “requiring a certain fee for

registration;”.

On page 2, after line 46 insert:

“(C) Fee. AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY A REGISTRATION

FEE IN THE AMOUNT OF $40.00 UNLESS THE UNATTENDED DONATION BOX OPERATOR IS A NON-

PROFIT ORGANIZATION EXEMPT FROM TAXATION UNDER 501(C)(3) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE

CODE.”.

(This amendment adds a requirement for a fee to register an unattended donation box but exempts

501(c)(3) non-profit operators.)



October 5, 2020


Amendment No. 3

On page 2 of the proposed bill, in line 40, strike “OF THE UNATTENDED DONATION BOX

OPERATOR AND PROPERTY OWNER” and substitute “, WITH RECORDING CAPABILITY, OF THE

OPERATOR OF THE UNATTENDED DONATION BOX”

On page 3, in line 18, after “OPERATOR” insert “, INCLUDING THE OPERATOR’S TELEPHONE

NUMBER WITH RECORDING CAPABILITY”.

(This amendment requires that contact information for an operator of an unattended donation box

include a telephone number with recording capability.)



October 5, 2020


Amendment No. 4

On page 2 of the proposed bill, in line 43, after “BOX” insert “ON THE PROPERTY”.

(This amendment clarifies that the vicinity map must show the location of the unattended donation

box on the property.)



October 5, 2020


Amendment No. 5

On page 2 of the proposed bill, in line 45, after “APPLICATION” insert “BY THE APPLICANT

AND APPROVAL OF THE LOCATION OF AN UNATTENDED DONATION BOX BY THE DEPARTMENT”.

(This amendment clarifies that the Department must approve the location of an unattended

donation box.)



October 5, 2020


Amendment No. 6

On page 3 of the proposed bill, in line 2 after “COMPLAINTS” insert “RELATING TO THE

UNATTENDED DONATION BOX”.

(This amendment clarifies that the Department may not accept the renewal of a registration if

there are open citations, unpaid fines, or unresolved violations or complaints relating to the

unattended donation box.)



October 5, 2020


Amendment No. 7

On page 3 of the proposed bill, in line 6, strike the first comma and substitute “OR”; and in the

same line strike the second comma and “OR WITHIN 20 FEET OF”.

(This amendment prohibits blight on or around an unattended donation box.)



October 5, 2020


Amendment No. 8

On page 3 of the proposed bill, in line 15, after “MATERIAL” insert “IN OR AROUND THE

UNATTENDED DONATION BOX”.

(This amendment requires the operator of an unattended donation box to remove material in or

around an unattended donation box.)

agenda county council of anne arundel ......agenda county council of anne arundel county, maryland...

Documents