Personal tools
You are here: Home → Council Minutes and Reports → Council Minutes 2009 → Council Minutes, Sep. 2009
« September 2010 »
September
MoTuWeThFrSaSu
12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930
 

Council Minutes, Sep. 2009

Minutes of the Council meeting held Sep. 8, 2009.

Date: September 8, 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; Joe Cutro, traffic engineer; five Section 5 residents.

  1. Minutes

    Andrew moved that the June 9, 2009, Council minutes be approved as revised; Alec seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

  2. Zoning Discussion

    Andrew said that he would like to postpone the zoning discussion because two of the committee members, Emily Eig and Kevin Bromberg, were unable to attend. Peter said that he thought the discussion could be conducted without the two members; however, the Council decided to wait until the October meeting to discuss the proposed zoning survey. Peter said that the Council agreed at its June meeting to send the zoning survey to residents in September, but since there was no urgency, a delay of a month or more would not matter. He hoped Kevin and Emily could attend the October meeting. The Council decided to wait until the October meeting to discuss the proposed zoning survey.

  3. Traffic Engineer’s Report

    Joe Cutro, a traffic engineer, said that he was the chief engineer for the City of Rockville for nineteen years. He now has his own business and works for several of the surrounding municipalities.

    He described several traffic calming devices which he has installed in Chevy View, the Town of Kensington, Martin's Additions, Section3 and the Town of Somerset. Some of these devices are: 1) traffic circles; 2) one-lane and two-lane chokers; 3) speed humps and 4) limited street access. He said, however, that Section 5 streets are two narrow to accommodate chokers and traffic circles. Peter asked which of the devices is the most effective and Joe said that given the width of Section streets speed humps would be the most effective traffic calming device.

    Joe said that he inspected Section 5's streets and determined that additional speed limit signs are needed. Also, he said that the mid-block stop sign on Williams Lane should be removed. A resident asked if installing limited access signs on Connecticut Ave. at each of the four main Section 5 streets would effectively limit the flow of cut-through traffic. Joe did not address the effectiveness of a limited access device but did say that Section 5 would need to contact the State Highway Administration before installing limited motorists access to coordinate the installation of these signs. Alec asked Joe to describe the process needed to get the State's permission to install limited access signs; Joe said to contact someone at the State level and this person would describe the process.

    Joe analyzed the data from three previous Section 5 traffic studies and determined that 85% of the motorists did not exceed the speed limit. He said that a municipality would not be able to realize a substantial reduction in speeding from the installation of a traffic calming device when only 15% of the motorists exceed the speed limit. Mr. Cutro said that for municipalities where the 85th percentile of motorists does not exceed 23 mph, i.e., the speed that humps are designed to achieve at the 85th percentile, the installation of speed bumps does not realize a substantial reduction in the average speed for those 85% of motorists. However, he said that even though the data does not meet one of the County's criteria, Section 5 could install speed humps because the streets belong to Section 5.

    Karin asked if speed humps would act as a deterrent to the 15% of motorists who exceed the speed limit. Joe said that he did not have data that shows speed humps deter that 15% of motorists. Alec asked if there was data that shows that the 15% of motorists who exceed the speed limit are responsible for a substantial number of accidents. Karin asked if speed hums would act as a deterrent for those motorists who exceed the speed limit significantly, like those who race down the street in our neighborhoods at 40+mph. Mr. Cutro said that he believes that this is indeed the case, but finds it unfortunate that his profession typically does not focus on outliers but instead only on the 85th percentile. Alec asked if there was data that shows whether these outliers are responsible for a substantial number of the accidents. Joe said that it would seem reasonable that speeders account for a substantial number of accidents but he does not know of such data.

    Andrew asked if placing two speed humps closer together than the County's recommended spacing would deter speeders. Joe said that he was not aware of any data which supports the idea of placing speed humps closer together acting as a deterrent to speeders. Joe said that there have been incidents where humps have been removed in the County because the humps were not as effective as had been determined. A resident asked about the cost of speed humps. Joe said that they cost between $2,500 and $3,000 per hump. This same resident asked if painted patterns at intersections is effective in calming traffic. Joe said that the data does not show that painted patterns reduce excessive speed. A resident said that Section 5 has stop bars at each intersection.

    A resident asked if emergency vehicles are delayed by the presence of speed humps. Joe said that studies have been conducted and it was determined that emergency vehicles are delayed for some seconds, however, he did not know the exact number. He did know that the County emergency service did not register a formal objection to the installation of speed humps.

    Joe said that the Town of Chevy Chase tried to meet the County's criteria before installing speed humps; however, their Council installed some humps without each of the criteria being met because of public demand. The Town has twenty-one humps; Martin's Additions six humps; Somerset twenty humps; and Kensington seventeen humps. North Chevy Chase has not installed humps.

    Joe provided the criteria which the County uses to install humps on County streets: 1) a public support petition is conducted; 2) the physical characteristics of the proposed street is determined; 3) the effectiveness of humps in reducing speed is determined; and 4) the traffic volume is determined. The County threshold limit is 100 vehicles per hour, and the minimum segment length in which bumps are inserted is 1000 feet. Joe suggested that Section 5 should meet at least one of the County's criteria if it decides to install speed humps.

    Joe also stated that the stop sign for Williams Lane half way between Connecticut Avenue and Brookville Road should be removed.

    Mr. Cutro suggested that if Section 5 were to allow the installation of speed humps, it should design its own parameters for at least one or two of the County's criteria. For example, Section 5 could establish its own minimum segment length requirement, which the National Standard states must be longer than 300 feet, but Montgomery County requires a minimum of 1000 feet. Mr. Cutro did not suggest which of the criteria were most appropriate for Section 5.  Neighboring municipalities have made different decisions regarding speed hump installation criteria, e.g., the Town of Chevy Chase eventually added a traffic volume criterion, Somerset has a segment length criterion, while Kensington and Martins Additions have no criteria, and North Chevy Chase does not allow speed humps at all.

    Andrew thanked Joe Cutro for his presentation. The Council decided to delay taking action concerning the installation of speed humps or posting limited access signs on Section 5 streets.

  4. Allocation of Police Patrols

    It was noted that all the police patrols for September were conducted during the daylight hours. It was noted that all the police patrols for the months between May and September were conducted during the daylight hours. Alec said that he would like to schedule some patrols during rush hour. The Council decided to ask Chief Gordon to schedule four hours of patrols for the month of October montoring traffic at internal intersections; four hours of patrols during the hours from 5:00 to 9:00pm and the remaining twelve hours to be scheduled at the Chief's discretion. There was some discussion about increasing the number of hours of patrols.

  5. Discussion of a Donation Policy

    Andrew explained that Section 5 has not in the past had a formal policy that prescribes guidelines concerning the donation of Section 5's funds to outside organizations. The Council has a proposed donation policy that the members of the Council have made comments about on email. Peter and Karin have edited this policy. There was some discussion of the first two provisions. Chris said that he would prefer The ensuing discussion primarily focused on whether Section 5 should restrict its charitable giving to organizations that "significantly benefit" the residents of Section 5 or whether charitable giving need only have a more general public benefit to its residents. Karin believes Section 5 should restrict its giving to organizations that significantly benefit the Section's residents, whereas other council members do not want to place such restrictions on the Council’s decisions. Some of the discussion focused on the fact that the Council is a representative government and need not restrict its decisions through policies, instead voters may choose not to re-elect council members who do not represent their views on an issue. Regarding the process followed to produce the first draft of the donation policy, Chris said that he would prefer discussions of proposed policies be conducted during a Council meeting rather than by email. Alec said that he would like to contact an attorney and ask if the Council is violating the open meetings law when it conducts discussions by email. He said that he would contact David Podolsky, a County attorney, about this matter. Alec agreed to take the Council members' comments and incorporate them into the proposed donation policy and email this document to the Council members.

  6. Treasurer’s Report

    Karin said that the revenues for 2008-09 were approximately $5,000 less than the previous year. She also said that Section 5 has received $81,000 of State income tax money for the new fiscal year.

  7. Building Inspector’s Report

    Alec said that two permits were issued this last month:

    • 3704 Woodbine St. - fence
    • 3814 Woodbine St. - 2 story rear addition

    Alec said that the resident at 6 Leland Ct. has petitioned the Council about widening his driveway. It was noted that the builder of that residence petitioned the Council for a widening of the driveway a year ago and the Council denied the request on the advice of Alan Beal. Alec said that he would go by and inspect the driveway and report back to the Council.

  8. Unlawful Harassment Policy (A copy of this policy is attached)

    Section 5's insurance company, LGIT, notified the town that it must create an unlawful harassment policy. The manager sent the Council members a proposed policy during the summer. The Council reviewed this policy and decided to adopt it. Andrew moved that the Council adopt this Unlawful Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation Policy; there was a second to the motion. The motion was passed unanimously.

  9. Manager’s Report

    The manager explained to the Council that she would like to have the large trees along Connecticut Avenue inspected to determine their health. The responsibility for the maintenance of these trees rests with the State; however, the State is suffering from a severe financial deficit and does not always monitor the health of its trees. Her request is in response to a tragedy which occurred when a woman was killed by a falling limb from a State owned tree on Connecticut Avenue this past summer. The Council agreed that the manager may engage an arborist to inspect the trees and then obtain several estimates to do the maintenance work and report to the Council.

    The manager said that she has contacted Verizon and determined that Verizon has installed the necessary wiring on each street in Section 5 which will allow Section 5 residents to access FIOS. Section 5 has purchased a new computer for the manager.

  10. Adjournment

    Andrew moved that the meeting be adjourned; everyone agreed. The next meeting will be held Tuesday, October 13, 2009, at 7:30pm at the Village Hall, 5906 Connecticut Avenue.

Policy Statement

Harassment, discrimination, or retaliation based upon race, color, religion, creed, sex, age, national origin, marital status, disability (mental or physical), sexual orientation, pregnancy or other protected characteristic, violates federal and state law and the policy of Section 5 of the Village of Chevy Chase’s (herein policy), and will not be tolerated. Section 5 of the Village of Chevy Chase (herein Section 5) will respond promptly to all complaints of unlawful harassment, discrimination or retaliation. Violation of this policy can result in serious disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment. Disciplinary action for violations of this policy will be the responsibility of the Council of Section 5.

Section 5 hereby affirms its desire to maintain a work environment for all employees that is free from all forms of unlawful harassment, discrimination or retaliation.

Definitions

  1. HARASSMENT is unwelcome conduct, based upon race, color, religion, creed, sex, age, national origin, marital status, disability (mental or physical), sexual orientation, pregnancy, or other protected characteristic, that is either a condition of work (quid pro quo) or creates a hostile work environment. It includes:

    1. Quid Pro Quo Harassment consists of unwelcome conduct when: submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment, or submission to, or rejection of, such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for decisions affecting such individual in matters of employment, or
    2. Hostile Environment Harassment consists of unwelcome conduct that has the effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work, or of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment.
  2. Retaliation is conduct causing any interference, coercion, restraint or reprisal against a person because the person complained of a violation of Section 5 policy or participated in the resolution of a complaint of a violation of this policy.

Violations of Policy

Any employee with a concern, grievance or complaint of unlawful harassment, discrimination, or retaliation may utilize the procedures outlined in Section 5’s Resolution Procedures for Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation Complaints.

Resolution Procedures for Unlawful Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation Complaints

These procedures are to be used to resolve complaints of unlawful harassment, discrimination and retaliation.

All employees have the right and are encouraged to immediately report suspected violations of Section 5 policy. Employees can report such incidents to the Council of Section 5 or to any supervisory employee. Employees should make every effort to report complaints promptly. Delays in reporting may hinder a proper investigation and unnecessarily subject the victim to continued unlawful conduct.

Supervisory employees should immediately report all alleged violations of Section 5 policy whether reported by an employee or observed directly, to the Council of Section 5 or to any supervisory employee. If reporting a complaint to any of the persons set forth above presents a conflict of interest, the complaint may be filed directly with a member of the Section 5 Council.

A prompt, thorough, and impartial investigation into the alleged unlawful harassment, discrimination or retaliation will take place. Such investigation will be conducted by a person designated by the Section 5 Council who will submit a report thereon to the Council. The Council will review the investigative report and make a determination as to whether the allegations of violation of Section 5 policy has been substantiated. If the allegations are determined to be substantiated, the Council will determine the appropriate corrective measures necessary to immediately remedy the violation. Such measures can include termination of employment.

To the extent practicable and appropriate under the circumstances, confidentiality will be maintained throughout all phases of the intake, investigation and remediation process. Any unwarranted breach of confidentiality by any person involved in this procedure may be considered an act of obstruction and may subject that person to disciplinary action.

Any employee can file a complaint directly with external agencies that investigate discrimination/harassment charges in addition to utilizing this internal procedure. Any employee who elects this option should contact the specific agency to obtain exact time frames for reporting, filing, etc.

Document Actions