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.
by Ms. Pickard, Chair
(by request of the County Executive)
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
Page 2
facility testing for certain subdivisions, preliminary plans or site development plans;
and generally relating to subdivision and development.
by Ms. Pickard, Chair
(by request of the County Executive)
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
by Ms. Pickard, Chair
(by request of the County Executive)
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
Page 3
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.
by Ms. Pickard, Chair
(by request of the County Executive)
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.
by Ms. Pickard, Chair
(by request of the County Executive)
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.
by Ms. Pickard, Chair
(by request of the County Executive)
and Ms. Pickard
Agenda
October 5, 2020
Page 4
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.
by Ms. Pickard, Chair
(by request of the County Executive)
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.
by Ms. Pickard, Chair
(by request of the County Executive)
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.
by Ms. Pickard, Chair
(by request of the County Executive)
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
Page 5
allowing certain management employees in the Police Department to join employee
organizations representing managed employees; and generally relating to personnel.
by Ms. Pickard, Chair
(by request of the County Executive)
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
COUNTY COUNCIL OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND
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.
by Ms. Pickard, Chair
(by request of the County Executive)
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.
by Ms. Pickard, Chair
(by request of the County Executive)
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.
by Ms. Pickard, Chair
(by request of the County Executive)
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.
by Ms. Pickard, Chair
(by request of the County Executive)
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.
by Ms. Pickard, Chair
(by request of the County Executive)
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
by Ms. Pickard, Chair
(by request of the County Executive)
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
by Ms. Pickard, Chair
(by request of the County Executive)
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.
There was no one present who wished to speak, and the hearing was concluded.
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.
The Administrative Officer stated there were no submissions of written public testimony
received on Bill No. 56-20, as amended.
There was no one present who wished to speak, and the hearing was concluded.
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:
Aye – Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Lacey, Mr. Volke, Mr. Pruski,
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:
Aye – Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Lacey, Mr. Volke, Mr. Pruski,
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:
Aye – Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Lacey, Mr. Volke, Mr. Pruski,
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
following roll call:
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
following roll call:
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
The Chairman stated that Bill No. 62-20, as amended, will be heard on Monday, October
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
The Chairman called for the public hearing on Bill No. 63-20, 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; 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.
The Administrative Officer stated there were no submissions of written public testimony
on Bill No. 63-20.
There was no one present who wished to speak, and the hearing was concluded.
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
The Chairman stated that Bill No. 63-20, as amended, will be heard on Monday, October
5, 2020.
BILL NO. 65-20
The Chairman called for the public hearing on Bill No. 65-20, An Ordinance concerning:
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.
There was no one present who wished to speak, and the hearing was concluded.
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:
Aye – Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Lacey, Mr. Volke, Mr. Pruski,
Ms. Pickard
Nay – None
RESOLUTION NO. 34-20
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.
There was no one present who wished to speak, and the hearing was concluded.
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.
Resolution No. 34-20 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
RESOLUTION NO. 38-20
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:
Aye – Ms. Fiedler, Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Haire, Ms. Lacey, Mr. Volke, Mr. Pruski,
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
RESOLUTION NO. 39-20
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.
Resolution No. 39-20 was adopted by the following roll call vote:
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
COUNTY COUNCIL OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND
Legislative Session 2020, Legislative Day No. 28
Bill No. 84-20
Introduced by Ms. Pickard, Chair
(by request of the County Executive)
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.
COUNTY COUNCIL OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND
Legislative Session 2020, Legislative Day No. 28
Bill No. 85-20
Introduced by Ms. Pickard, Chair
(by request of the County Executive)
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: 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
Anne Arundel County Code (2005, as amended) 19
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
Anne Arundel County Code (2005, as amended) 23
PROPOSED
Bill No. 85-20
Page No. 2
BY adding: § 13-5-113; and 13-5-813(f) 1
Anne Arundel County Code (2005, as amended) 2
3
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the County Council of Anne Arundel County, Maryland, 4
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
SECTION 3. Be it enacted by the County Council of Anne Arundel County, Maryland, 12
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
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.
Legislative Summary – Bill No. 85-20
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.
Legislative Summary – Bill No. 85-20
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________
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.
COUNTY COUNCIL OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND
Legislative Session 2020, Legislative Day No. 28
Bill No. 86-20
Introduced by Ms. Pickard, Chair
(by request of the County Executive)
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: 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
Anne Arundel County Code (2005, as amended) 16
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
Anne Arundel County Code (2005, as amended) 1
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
Anne Arundel County Code (2005, as amended) 5
6
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the County Council of Anne Arundel County, Maryland, 7
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
SECTION 3. Be it enacted by the County Council of Anne Arundel County, Maryland, 16
That Section(s) of the Anne Arundel County Code (2005, as amended) read as follows: 17
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
(2) Upon receipt of a written request not less than 10 days before a re-submittal 40
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
(2) Upon receipt of a written request not less than 10 days before a re-submittal 36
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
(3) [[Upon receipt of a written request not less than 10 days before a re-submittal 41
deadline in this subsection, and upon a determination by the Planning and Zoning Officer 42
that good cause is shown, the Office of Planning and Zoning may grant a third time 43
extension for re-submittal not to exceed 60 days. 44
45
(4)]] After a [[third]] SECOND time extension, any further extensions require a 46
modification PURSUANT TO § 17-2-108. 47
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
(2) Upon receipt of a written request not less than 10 days before a re-submittal 17
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
(3) [[Upon receipt of a written request not less than 10 days before a re-submittal 22
deadline in this subsection, and upon a determination by the Planning and Zoning Officer 23
that good cause is shown, the Office of Planning and Zoning may grant a third time 24
extension for re-submittal not to exceed 60 days. 25
26
(4)]] After a [[third]] SECOND time extension, any further extensions require a 27
modification PURSUANT TO § 17-2-108. 28
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
SECTION 5. And be it further enacted, That this Ordinance shall take effect 45 days 42
from the date it becomes law. 43
_____________________________________________________________________________________
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.
COUNTY COUNCIL OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND
Legislative Session 2020, Legislative Day No. 28
Bill No. 87-20
Introduced by Ms. Fiedler
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: 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
Anne Arundel County Code (2005, as amended) 10
11
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the County Council of Anne Arundel County, Maryland, 12
That Section(s) of the Anne Arundel County Code (2005, as amended) read as follows: 13
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
SECTION 2. And be it further enacted, That this Ordinance shall take effect 45 days 24
from the date it becomes law. 25
COUNTY COUNCIL OF
LEGISLATIVE SUMMARY*
To: All Councilmembers of the Anne Arundel County Council
From: Linda M. Schuett, Legislative Counsel
Date: October 5, 2020
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.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
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.
COUNTY COUNCIL OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND
Legislative Session 2020, Legislative Day No. 28
Bill No. 88-20
Introduced by Ms. Haire
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: 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
Anne Arundel County Code (2005, as amended) 9
10
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the County Council of Anne Arundel County, Maryland, 11
That Section(s) of the Anne Arundel County Code (2005, as amended) read as follows: 12
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
SECTION 2. And be it further enacted, That this Ordinance shall take effect 45 days 16
from the date it becomes law. 17
COUNTY COUNCIL OF
LEGISLATIVE SUMMARY*
To: All Councilmembers of the Anne Arundel County Council
From: Linda M. Schuett, Legislative Counsel
Date: October 5, 2020
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.
COUNTY COUNCIL OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND
Legislative Session 2020, Legislative Day No. 28
Resolution No. 40-20
Introduced by Ms. Pickard, Chair
(by request of the County Executive)
and by Ms. Pickard
By the County Council, October 5, 2020
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
Resolution No. 40-20
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/
Date: October 5, 2020
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
COUNTY COUNCIL OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND
Legislative Session 2020, Legislative Day No. 28
Resolution No. 41-20
Introduced by Ms. Rodvien
By the County Council, October 5, 2020
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
Resolution No. 41-20
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
Introduced by Ms. Haire
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.)
AMENDMENT TO BILL NO. 69-20
(Zoning – Farm or Agricultural Heritage Site Stays and Special Events)
October 5, 2020
Introduced by Ms. Haire
Amendment No. 2
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; 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.)
AMENDMENT TO BILL NO. 69-20
(Zoning – Farm or Agricultural Heritage Site Stays and Special Events)
October 5, 2020
Introduced by Ms. Haire
Amendment No. 3
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; 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.)
AMENDMENT TO BILL NO. 72-20
(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.)
AMENDMENT TO BILL NO. 72-20
(Licenses and Registrations – Unattended Donation Boxes)
October 5, 2020
Introduced by Mr. Volke
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.)
AMENDMENT TO BILL NO. 72-20
(Licenses and Registrations – Unattended Donation Boxes)
October 5, 2020
Introduced by Mr. Volke
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.)
AMENDMENT TO BILL NO. 72-20
(Licenses and Registrations – Unattended Donation Boxes)
October 5, 2020
Introduced by Mr. Volke
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.)
AMENDMENT TO BILL NO. 72-20
(Licenses and Registrations – Unattended Donation Boxes)
October 5, 2020
Introduced by Mr. Volke
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.)
AMENDMENT TO BILL NO. 72-20
(Licenses and Registrations – Unattended Donation Boxes)
October 5, 2020
Introduced by Mr. Volke
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.)
AMENDMENT TO BILL NO. 72-20
(Licenses and Registrations – Unattended Donation Boxes)
October 5, 2020
Introduced by Mr. Volke
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.)
AMENDMENT TO BILL NO. 72-20
(Licenses and Registrations – Unattended Donation Boxes)
October 5, 2020
Introduced by Mr. Volke
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.)