Council Minutes, May 2009

SECTION 5 OF THE VILLAGE OF CHEVY CHASE

MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION #6

Date: May 12, 2009

Time: 6:30 PM

Place: 5906 Connecticut Avenue, Chevy Chase Village Hall

Present: Karin Flynn; Alec French; Peter Gray; Frances L. Higgins; Chris Richardson; Andrew Smith; One Section 5 resident

The purpose of this meeting was to provide the Council an opportunity to discuss different zoning options that Andrew and Frances have suggested. They gleaned these options from zoning ordinances from the Town of Chevy Chase, the Village of Chevy Chase and Martin’s Additions. Andrew said that he wanted the Council to review this material and reach a consensus concerning zoning options which the Council would then send to the residents for their comments

Alec suggested that this information for residents should include several options: 1) regulations that are very similar to Martins’ Additions; 2) County regulations; 3) Section 3’s approach. There also could be singular options such as 1) side setbacks; 2) house height; 3) wall plane length. Peter said that the material should state that Section 5 has enacted the County’s zoning regulations.

Karin stated that Section 5’s Council has over the years experienced difficulty in enforcing its fencing ordinance and new zoning regulations will be even more difficult to enforce than fence regulations. Peter asked John Higgins his position on Section 5 enacting new zoning regulations. John thinks that Section 5 should use the County’s zoning regulations which it enacted last year. The County not Section 5 would then be the entity which would bring legal action against a resident for violation of the zoning code.

Andrew observed that although Section 5 is more nearly the size of Section 3, its distribution of large and small lots is more similar to Martin’s Additions than to that of Section 3. He did, however, express some concern that if Section 5 does enact more stringent zoning regulations than the County, Section 5 would need to budget money to enforce these regulations.

Alec asked what the cost of implementing new Section 5 zoning regulations would be. Andrew explained that Section 5 employs Alan Beal on an hourly basis to review building permit applications and then monitor the actual construction process. Andrew said that he thinks the proposed Section 5 zoning regulations are not too restrictive. Karin asked if Section 5 first employed Alan Beal before or after the situation in which the Duffy’s encountered some zoning difficulties with the County. Andrew answered that Section 5 employed Alan after the Duffy’s encounter with the County. Karin suggested that enacting additional zoning regulations placing the burden of enforcement on the council, creating the potential for dispute between neighbors – those on the Council and those with potential building issues. Section 5 has witnessed the type of dramatic consequences such intra-neighborhood dispute can have, and the Council must weigh the possibility of this emotional cost as a potential downside of enacting new regulations.

Andrew said that when the Council first became involved in the process of considering new zoning regulations, the Council sent out a survey to determine the degree of interest among residents regarding new zoning. Many residents responded to the survey indicating their interest in the Council pursuing the issue of additional zoning. During the fourth quarter of 2003, residents were asked whether Section 5 should be granted zoning authority by the State legislature. Nearly 34% of residents responded in favor, 24% were opposed, and 42% did not respond. In subsequent meetings of the Council few residents attended the sessions at which zoning was discussed. Alec asked about the possibility of litigation if the zoning regulations are enacted. Andrew said that he does not think that the new regulations would cause litigation. Alec said that there is always a possibility of litigation.

Peter suggested that the Council proceed slowly and pass new zoning regulations in small increments rather attempting to enact an entire package similar to Martin’s Additions. Karin mentioned that Section 3 has addressed the issue of zoning by enacting front and side setbacks only. She also said that the formula to determine the size of a house on a lot larger than 6,000 sq. ft. has some problems. Karin asked the Council if members were in agreement that zoning proposals be sent to the residents. All agreed that they were and that this is the normal practice with proposed ordinances

Andrew asked if the preamble to the zoning material met with the Council’s approval. Peter said that the preamble material is slanted toward Martin’s Additions’ proposed zoning regulations. Karin agreed that the preamble exhibits is slanted towards Martin’s Additions approach to zoning. She also said that the material should present the proposals in an evenhanded manner. For example, it should be mentioned that Section 3 enacted side setbacks only. Andrew agreed to incorporate Peter’s comments into his material and be certain to give the material a neutral approach.

Karin asked what would be the process for readying this material for residents. Andrew said that he would rewrite the material and send it to the Council with sufficient time for each member to review it before the June meeting. Each member would then send his/her comments to Andrew. He would incorporate these comments and send it back to the Council.

Andrew proposed that the zoning information be sent to the residents after the June meeting to allow residents an opportunity to review it over the summer and come to September meeting to discuss it. Peter asked that Andrew report to the residents that Section 5 has already enacted the County’s zoning regulations. He commented that he is comfortable with waiting until the fall to send the material to residents.

Alec asked if there were any open meeting implications in the emailing of material among Council members. John Higgins stated he wasn’t sure but that there should not be any problem if this was limited to sending information back and forth. The problem would be if votes were taken electronically. Alec asked if the Council could set up a blog where Council members could exchange ideas and information concerning zoning. The manager will obtain information about the open meeting law and its application to a blog.

The work session ended at 7:30 p.m.

SECTION 5 OF THE VILLAGE OF CHEVY CHASE

MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING

Date: May 12, 2009

Time: 7:30 PM

Place: 5906 Connecticut Avenue, Chevy Chase Village Hall

Present: Karin Flynn; Alec French, Peter Gray; Frances L. Higgins, Chris Richardson; Andrew Smith; 5 Section 5 residents

1. Minutes

   Andrew moved that the April 7, 2009, Annual Meeting minutes be approved as revised; Peter seconded the motion. The motion passed; Peter, Andrew, and Chris voted to pass the motion; Karin abstained because she said that she was not at the meeting.

2. Citizens’ Concerns and Suggestions to the Council/Traffic and Street Safety

   A Woodbine Street resident said that his car has been sideswiped three times. In two of the incidents the motorist did not stop and the resident’s insurance company paid for the repairs. In the most recent incident the motorist left the scene but later returned. The resident said that he believes that motorists sideswipe cars on Woodbine Street because the street’s narrowness precludes the easy flow of two way traffic. This narrowness requires motorists to pull into a parking place on the south side and wait for the oncoming motorist. It is either when the motorist pulls into the parking place or out that he/she sideswipes the car. He said that non-residents use Woodbine Street as a means of avoiding Connecticut Avenue or Brookville Road traffic.

   This resident had four suggestions to make Woodbine St. safer: 1) preclude non resident traffic entering Woodbine Street from Brookville Road in the morning rush hour and Connecticut Avenue in the evening rush hour by posting Do Not Enter signs; 2) reinstall the stop sign on the south side of Woodbine St. where Glendale Road deadends 3) repaint the white street lines at each stop sign on Woodbine Street and Glendale Road; and 4) assign police to monitor motorists at the Woodbine Street/Glendale Rd. stop signs.

   The Council agreed to repaint the white street lines, to reinstall the stop sign, and to ask police to monitor stop signs; the members agreed to consider precluding traffic from entering Section 5 during rush hour. The Council also agreed to trim the trees which block motorists’ vision at stop signs. Alec asked if the Village police could assign an officer to sit at the Woodbine Street and Glendale Road corner and the Council agreed.

   An Underwood Street resident asked the Council if it would agree to ask the police to monitor motorists at the Underwood Street and Dalkeith Street stop sign. He has witnessed numerous motorists who fail to stop at that sign. The Council agreed to assign police officers to monitor motorists at that stop sign also. In fact, the Council directed the manager to contact Chief Gordon and ask him to assign police officers to randomly monitor each these intersections. The manager will include a notice to the residents of these actions in the next newsletter.

   A resident asked the Council if it would consider installing speed bumps as a safety measure. There was some discussion. It was stated that Section 5 has the authority to install speed bumps on its own streets. John Higgins suggested that the Council employ a traffic consultant to advise it about installation of speed bumps and about the effect of limiting access to Section 5 during rush hour. The manager will locate a traffic consultant.

   The Council directed the manager, prior to the next meeting, to consult with others Sections regarding the process in which those Sections engaged and lessons they learned during installation of “do not enter” signs.

3. Update on Additional Police Patrols

   Peter reported that since January when Section 5 contracted with the Village for additional police patrols, there has been no crime reported in Section 5. During this same period last year there were eleven crimes; three crimes involved thefts from cars, four thefts from houses and four were narcotics related. There was some discussion regarding employing the Village police when the present contract expires. Chris asked how the Council will determine if the additional police patrols have contributed to a safer neighborhood. Peter said the decline in the number of reported crime incidences showed that police patrols acted as a deterrent to crime and contributed to a safer neighborhood, and residents felt more secure knowing of the additional police presence on their streets. Peter moved that Section 5 renew the contract with the Village of Chevy Chase to employ Village police for twenty hours per month for $1,000 per month for one year beginning July 1, 2009. Andrew seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. The manager will contact Chief Gordon, Village Police Chief, and advise him of the Council’s decision.

   An Underwood Street resident asked the Council if it could obtain a report regarding the number of times the County police patrol Section 5’s streets. He asked this because he has seen the Village police report which states the number of times the Village police are in Section 5. The manager will contact the Bethesda police station to obtain such a report and report back to the Council.

4. Discussion of Electronic Dog Fence Ordinance

   Andrew said that the purpose of the proposed electronic dog fence ordinance is to protect people from the fear created when dogs that do not appear to be under any control, are able to come to the edge of the owner’s property and appear to be about to lunge at pedestrians. The ordinance requires the fence to be installed three feet behind the public sidewalk. Karin said that the current phrasing of the ordinance makes a resident with such a fence appear as not respectful of the safety of pedestrians. Karin also suggested that a sign would be sufficient to let pedestrians know of the existence of the electronic fence, as has been implemented in Chevy Chase Village. There was some discussion. Andrew moved that Section enact the electronic dog fence ordinance; Peter seconded the motion. Peter, Andrew, and Chris voted to enact the ordinance; Karin and Alec voted not to enact the ordinance. The manager will send a notice to the residents that the ordinance has been enacted.

5. Building Inspector’s Report

   Permit granted: 3602 Underwood St. – small portion fence replaced

6. Election of Officers

   Andrew moved that Karin be elected as treasurer; that Peter be elected as vice-chairman; that Chris be elected secretary; that Alec be elected as building inspector. They were elected unanimously.

7. Manager's Report

   The manager reported that Medco, a scanning company, has scanned all the historic Section 5 documents from 1916 to the present day and stored this material on CD’s as well as DVD’s. The manager plans to store a set of these CD’s and DVD’s at her house and a set off site. Karin suggested that this material also be downloaded on a harddrive off site. The Council agreed with her suggestion and Karin said that she will help locate a site. The Council agreed that the manager may loan all Section 5’s historical documents to the Chevy Chase Historical Society located in the lower floor of the Chevy Chase Library.

   A resident sent an email asking the Council to enact an ordinance to preclude the parking of boats in front yards on private property. The Council decided not to take any action at this time.

   The manger contacted Pete Johnson, Section 5’s web master, to determine why Section 5’s computer is sluggish when it is first turned on. Peter said that this problem could be remedied by installing additional memory. He will do this for $40. The Council agreed to have this memory added.

   The manager provided the Council with a copy of a sample newsletter. There was some discussion about employing an outsider to produce the newsletter. The manager said that Pete Johnson has offered to assist her in producing the newsletter. Karin said that she has had experience in publishing and will help the manager.

   The manager explained to the Council that Pepco has drawn up a plan to replace the mercury vapor light fixtures on each of the 80 street light poles. Pepco will replace these with cobra fixture containing a high pressure sodium light at no charge to Section 5. If Section 5 would like to install a different light fixture, it must pay for these. The Council looked at the cobra light fixture as well as several other choices. The manager will obtain prices for each of the other fixtures.

   The manager contacted Section 5’s insurance provider, LGIT, about additional insurance to cover the additional patrols. The additional cost will be approximately $300 per year.

   The Council agreed to offer the residents a free shade tree which may be planted on private property. This offer is part of Section 5’s Urban Reforestation Program which helps increase the tree canopy.

   The manager gave a framed picture with Section 5’s logo on it to outgoing Council members, Margy Abbott and Ira Rosenbaum for their years of service to Section.

   A sample copy of the telephone book will be sent to the residents for their additions or corrections. The next telephone book will be published in June.

   The manager reported that a resident asked the manager if the Council would pay to employ a truck to go through Section 5 and collect unused latex paint for disposal. There was some discussion. Alec said that he did not think that Section 5 should assume the cost for residents to dispose of latex paint as he has seen a notice that the County has waste sites where residents may go and dispose of the paint. The manager said that she does not think the County will accept any latex that has not been dried. She will check with the County on the rules.

   Rob Gibbs, Section 5’s former CPA, has notified Section 5 that he will no longer perform audits. Section 5 has engaged a new accounting firm, Lindsay & Associates. The manager has informed the new accountant that Section 5’s audit is due in the State Legislative Services office November 30, 2009.

   Peter reported on the progress which the Chevy Chase At Home project has made since its inception four months ago. This is a community based project which provides services to older residents so that they may live independently in their own homes rather than move to a nursing home. Peter has volunteered to represent Section 5 on the committee setting up this project.

The meeting was adjourned. The next meeting will be June 9, 2009, at 7:30 PM at the Village Hall, 5906 Connecticut Avenue. Everyone is welcome.