SECTION 5 OF THE VILLAGE OF CHEVY CHASE

MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING


Date: November 9, 2004

Time: 7:30pm

Place: 5906 Connecticut Avenue, Chevy Chase Village Hall

Present: Frances L. Higgins; Farooq Hussain; Nancy Pines; Stuart Rudikoff; Andrew Smith; four Section 5 residents

  1. Minutes

Stuart moved that the October 12, 2004, Council meeting minutes be approved as presented; there was a second and the motion passed unanimously.


  1. Greetings

Stuart welcomed everyone.

Old Business

  1. Zoning

Stuart said that he has contacted the zoning committee chairperson in the Town of Chevy Chase and he is waiting for her to get back to him.

  1. Budget

Stuart presented a copy of the list of revenues and expenditures for the town. He said that the only unusual expenditure was the amount spent under the tree item. This was the cost of refurbishing five sections of public strip. In the spring the Council will at the condition of other public strips and determine if there are other public strips which need to be refurbished.

  1. Proposed County Ordinances

Stuart said that he sent an email to the County Council expressing Section 5’s opposition to the proposed ordinance which would require a fee to use the County’s ambulance service. Section 5’s Council is concerned that residents would allow cost to influence their decision to use the ambulance service. He also sent an email to the County Council expressing Section 5’s opposition to the proposed ordinance which would change the process to obtain a permit for an accessory apartment.

Stuart said the Council has purchased a $100,000 certificate of deposit. He said that in six months the Council will discuss the purchase of another $100,000 certificate of deposit but will retain $500,000 in the Maryland Local Government Investment Pool.

  1. Treasurer’s Report

Nancy did not have any additional information about the town’s finances.

  1. Fence Regulations Revision

Stuart provided some background information concerning why the Council has proposed a change in the fence regulations. First, the Council has been facede with the existence of previously erected fences which do not meet the fence regulations but have been allowed to stand. As a result neighbors who are exposed to such fences frequently feel they should also be allowed to erect new fences in a similar manner even if they are in violation of regulations. Second, fences have been erected with the ‘wrong side’ facing neighbors, but have been allowed to stand due largely to a

Page 2 November Council Meeting Minutes

lack of opposition by neighboring residents. However, in other instances neighboring residents have objected and the present Council has required the fences to be changed in accordance with the regulations. Thus, the current fence regulations have not been enforced in a uniform manner. It was stated that the Council felt the proposed changes would eliminate these problems and obviate current difficulties in administering the fence regulations. All Council members agreed that the regulations needed to be changed to allow uniform and equitable enforcement and to eliminate the disproportionate amount of time the Council spends on fence issues. Four residents participated in a discussion offering their views. One resident indicated that he thought the Council should research the fence regulations of other jurisdictions and also was concerned that the cost of double-sided fences would be excessive. Stuart stated that the Council had obtained pricing information indicating that the cost of a double-sided fence was only $1.00/ft more than a single-sided fence. A second resident said that the Council should allow neighbors to decide among themselves which way a fence should face. A third resident indicated her support of the proposed ordinance suggesting fences finished on both sides would make the town look better.

Nancy moved that the Council poll the residents about their views regarding the proposed ordinance requiring fences to be finished on both sides. Nancy voted for the motion and Stuart and Andrew voted against. The motion did not pass. Stuart moved that the proposed ordinance which reads: “Any fence permitted under subsection (3) shall (a) be constructed with both sides finished” and “Every application for a fence shall be accompanied by a site plan and by a picture or drawing of the proposed fence (both sides).” Be enacted. Andrew seconded the motion. Stuart and Andrew voted for the ordinance and Nancy voted against (Farooq had to leave before the vote). The motion carried.

A resident arrived after the motion passed and asked to express her views concerning the ordinance. She has a fence with the finished side facing her abutting neighbors; this fence does not completely enclose her property. She is concerned about how this new ordinance will affect her ability to erect additional fencing to fill in the gaps in the same style as the present fence. Stuart indicated that she could apply for a variance of the new regulations.


8. Building Inspector’s Report

Andrew said that no building permits were issued in November.

  1. Manager’s Report

The Council agreed to pay the $300 subscription fee for the Local Government Law Weekly. John Higgins reviews the cases in this subscription and reports to the Council on municipal matters pertinent to Section 5.

The town audit was completed and filed with the Legislative Services office in Annapolis. Fifteen town trees will be planted in the public strips in the third week of November. The manager will get information concerning a newWSSC service. This service will provide a WSSC-authorized plumber to isolate a residence from the sewer system during extreme conditions. This service would be provided by WSSC and not involve the Council.

The next meeting will be December 14, 2004, at Chevy Chase Village hall, 5906 Connecticut Avenue, at 7:30pm.