Council minutes, Mar. 2009

SECTION 5 OF THE VILLAGE OF CHEVY CHASE

MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION

Date: March 10, 2009

Time: 6:30 PM

Place: 5906 Connecticut Avenue, Chevy Chase Village Hall

Present: Margy Abbott; Peter Gray; Frances L. Higgins; Chris Richardson; Ira Rosenbaum; Andrew Smith; Alan Beal; John Higgins

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss whether Section 5 will continue to use the County’s building regulations or adopt ones more stringent than the County’s. Andrew said that at the last work session Chris had asked about the differences between the County’s current building regulations and the regulations in effect in the Town of Chevy and those proposed by Martin’s Additions.

The County maximum house height is 35 ft.; Martin’s Additions has lowered that height to 32 ft. Andrew said that he believes Martin’s Additions lowered the height to decrease the impression of the massiveness of a house especially when there are several houses in a row with a height of 35 ft.

Alan said that Martin’s Additions limited the wall plane of a house in order to address house height on all four sides rather than just the height in the front. The County’s regulations do not address the wall plane of a house. Andrew said that limiting the wall plane prevents houses looking likes dormitories or hotels. Andrew asked how Martin’s Additions arrived at the 44 ft. wall plane limit. Alan said that the Land Use Committee looked at the houses in a certain block and determined that most houses had lots sufficiently deep to accommodate a 44 ft. wall plane.

Martin’s Additions had discussed an ordinance dealing with lot coverage as well as a side setback before Berliner proposed his bill which contained a 30% lot coverage and an 18 ft. side set back. Martin’s Additions has a limit of 28% lot coverage and an 18 ft. side setback for lots of 6,000 sq. ft.

Alan said that Martin’s Additions wanted to limit driveway curb cuts and parking pads in front yards. Limiting non vegetative surfaces in front yards is one way to do this. Additional curb cuts limit on street parking. The County does not limit the number of curb cuts.

Andrew said that he would like the Council to send Section 5 residents copies of the zoning material which the Council has been discussing at the work sessions and invite the residents to come to a Council meeting and discuss it. There was some discussion. Peter said that the residents should be told that Section 5 does not need to adopt new building regulations; it may continue to use the County’s building regulations. It was decided to send this zoning material to the residents and invite them to the May Council meeting to discuss it.

SECTION 5 OF THE VILLAGE OF CHEVY CHASE

MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING

Date: March 10, 2009

Time: 7:30 PM

Place: 5906 Connecticut Avenue, Chevy Chase Village Hall

Present: Margy Abbott; Peter Gray; Frances L. Higgins; Chris Richardson; Ira Rosenbaum; Andrew Smith; 12 Section 5 residents

Andrew moved that the February 10, 2009, Council Work Session and Council meeting minutes be approved as amended; Ira seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Chief Gordon, the Village Police Chief said that he has received 10 questions which Peter sent to him. 1) Some residents have not noticed added police patrols on their streets. How can the patrols be made more noticeable? Chief said that the patrols are conducted in the day light hours so that they are visible to the residents. He said that Section 5 had not given him specific instructions when the patrols began in January. 2) Why are no patrols scheduled for Saturdays and Sundays. Chief said that he has only one officer on weekends and that this one officer covers the Village on weekends. 3) Why are no patrols in Section 5 scheduled on Tuesdays? Chief said that Tuesdays will be covered in March. 4) Why are most patrols scheduled on Mondays? Patrols are scheduled on different days in different months. 5) How are the hours and days of patrols chosen, and do they vary from month to month? They vary from month to month. 6) Why are all the patrols on any given day scheduled in 2-hour increments, rather than spreading them across more days in 1-hour increments? Chief said that it is a better use of time to have a 2-hour continuous stretch of time in a town rather than two 1-hour time spans. 7) Are the patrol cars constantly moving through Section 5 streets during each 2-hour period, or do they stay at a particular location for part of the time? Chief said that sometimes a patrol will stay at one location to stop motorists from going through a stop sign or stop excessive speeding. Patrols alternate staying in one location and patrolling the streets. 8) Are all or only certain streets in Section 5 covered by each patrol during the scheduled periods? Chief said that the patrols cover all the streets in a 2-hr. shift. 9) What percent of the scheduled patrol time is spent on monitoring speeding or other traffic violations in Section 5? Chief said that about 50% of the time is monitoring traffic. 10) What violations or crimes (if any) have been observed based on the first 2 months of patrols in Section 5? Chief said that the infractions have all been traffic violations. For example, his officers have been placing warning tickets on cars parked with the left wheel to the curb. He explained the reason for the law.

A resident said that he witnessed a car with D. C. tags going at an excessive rate of speed on Glendale Road. The Chief said that if the resident would email the tag number to him, the Chief would write a letter to the tag owner warning about the dangers of excessive speed. Peter said that he understands that car breakins are a problem in the area; is this true in Section 5? Chief said that there were 1,400 breakins in the Second Police District in the last year. Section 5 is in the Second Police District. A resident asked if the breakin crime statistics distinguished between a locked car and an unlocked car. The Chief said that crimes involving items stolen from cars are all considered breakins whether the car is locked or unlocked.

A resident asked the Chief if he has been able to stop a crime in progress. He said that he had not been able to stop a crime in progress; however, he did say that a municipality which had been experiencing breakins between midnight and 5:00 AM asked him to send patrols to the town between these hours. The breakins stopped after the patrols were initiated during the hours between midnight and 5:00am. A resident asked if there has been any assaults in Chevy Chase. The Chief said that there was a home invasion in the Village.

Margy suggested that the manager withdraw $300,000 from the MLGIP account and purchase two CD’s. The Council agreed.

Margy said that Section 5’s accountant has decided not to renew its contract with the town. The manager has located a new accountant; however, the cost of an audit with this new firm will be $6,000 rather than $3,000 as the present auditor has charged.

Margy said that all of Section 5’s documents since 1922 are stored in Frances’ basement and this considerable amount of paper could prove to be a fire hazard. Margy recommended that Section 5 engage a document storage company to scan all these documents. Some of this material once it is scanned may be destroyed; however, there is a State statute which requires municipalities to offer any material slated for disposal to the State archives office. The manager will determine which materials may be destroyed and which ones must be kept. Margy said that $15,000 was placed in the budget two years ago for this scanning process but has not as yet been used. She suggested that this $15,000 in the office budget be used for scanning. She also recommended that Section 5 rent a free-standing storage unit to store the material in the manager’s basement; this rental will be approximately $2,400 per year and should be placed in the budget under office and printing. The Council agreed.

Margy said that Dalkeith Street and east Thornapple Street need to be milled and overlayed at a cost of approximately $28,000. The street budget for 2009 is $30,000 and the town has spent $12,000 to date. She suggested that these two streets be milled and overlayed and the cost come from the 2009 budget. She also said that the manager has identified sections of sidewalk which need to be replaced with concrete in some places and with rubber interlocking blocks around trees. These sidewalk repairs will cost approximately $13,000. There was some discussion. She said that the roads in Section 5 were milled and overlayed in 1992-94 and have had a slurry seal applied twice since that time. According to civil engineers roads should be milled and overlayed every seventeen to twenty years. It has been seventeen years since Section 5’s roads were milled and overlayed.

Margy said that the manager has reviewed Section 5’s financial records and determined that the State has given the town $306,000 in highway user fees since 1993. She also said that Section 5 has spent approximately $150,000 on street repairs since 1993. This would leave $150,000 in a road repair account; however, Section 5 has never kept a separate account for street repairs until last year when the manager set up a separate road repair account with Eagle Bank. This account has $40,000 in it.

Margy said that she anticipates Section 5 will receive approximately $250,000 in revenues more than it budgeted in 2009. She said that Woodbine St. and Windsor Lane have recently been milled and overlayed. She suggested that Section 5 use the anticipated excess revenue to mill and overlay Thornapple St., Underwood St., Williams Ln. and Alden Ln. at a cost of approximately $260,000. Ira said that he did not think it was necessary to repair all the streets at the same time. Peter also said that it was not necessary to repair all the streets at the same time. There was some discussion of a real estate tax rebate using the anticipated excess revenue. Margy said that she believes that it is fiscally irresponsible to take into account a tax rebate when creating a budget. There was some discussion. Chris said that since the State has given Section 5 money for street repairs, it should be spent for that purpose. Chris said that he thought Section 5 should mill and overlay all the streets which need the repairs. Andrew agreed with Chris. There was some discussion. The Council agreed to spend up to $275,000 to mill and overlay Thornapple St., Williams Ln., Underwood St., Dalkeith St. and Alden Ln.

The budget for fiscal 2010 is: trash & recycling $75,000; trees $60,000; leaf collection & disposal $12,000; streets $275,000; lighting $11,000; snow removal $10,000; personnel & administration $60,000; professional fees $15,000; insurance $2,500; miscellaneous $3,000; office & printing $17,400; community activities $30,000; dues & meetings $5,000; cable TV $3,000; police patrols $12,000.

Martin’s Additions and Section 3 have engaged a shredding company for April 18, 2009, for 4 hours. They have asked Section 5 to participate with them and share the cost. The cost for Section 5 will be $400. The Council agreed to participate in this activity. The manager said that Section 5’s trash contract allows the town and the company to enter into a one year extension of the present contract without putting the contract for bids. The Council agreed to this one year extension. Andrew signed the one year contract extension for Section 5.

Section 5’s unemployment insurance contract is up for renewal. The Council agreed to renew the contract with Injured Workers Insurance Fund for unemployment insurance. The Council agreed to create a new phone book for 2009.

There was some discussion of having four bulk trash pickups rather than two per year. The Council agreed to continue with two bulk pickups per year.

The Council reviewed the proposed electronic dog fence ordinance. Margy explained that this type of fence controls a dog by administering an electric shock from a collar which is attached to a dog’s neck. She explained that the wire which triggers the electric shock is buried in the ground and if this wire is precisely adjacent to the public sidewalk, a pedestrian could fear that the approaching dog could present a threat of harm. The ordinance requires a resident to obtain a permit and place the fence three feet from the public sidewalk. Peter asked if this permit will require a fee. The Council will decide at the May meeting if it will levy a fee for this permit. The manager will send copies of the proposed ordinance to the residents before the May meeting at which time they may voice their opinions.

Andrew moved that the meeting adjourn; there was a second and it passed unanimously. The next meeting will be the Annual Meeting, April 7, 2009, at 7:30pm at the Village Hall, 5906 Connecticut Avenue.