[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6536711,"mediaKeyId","3726976-874778481894e50207c83bf8b1fb78a7","parentId",3726976,"title","Committee advances anti‑litter and weed enforcement measure requiring county to abate commercial properties","audioSeconds",391,"startMs",60000,"endMs",451000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3726976-874778481894e50207c83bf8b1fb78a7&start=60&end=451","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3726976-874778481894e50207c83bf8b1fb78a7/thumbnail_60000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6536711/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Committee-advances-antilitter-and-weed-enforcement-measure-requiring-county-to-abate-commercial-properties","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6536711-80513a62c5bf57d7eb2dbaab7df01770/orig.mp4?Expires=1770440287&Signature=c913fXiI20U4j1hF~KO9C2ShdsbAVpAvYNtQJsPApyeZ9Gpyl6eEsKXUHFDIbjz5FkeBPEekCb5ie2ySgREm6Qz7dJ23C4o1Z3s7JPmAAmUM4MTouQXm6~XaX-MHcEeJo0ifLkAu6-1v2MmruiuV7ORrZjDgfDnmzkRvNxY-wXMkP5bv8fN8joIslXsOiTqIPj1Rxa0NKheNFomwqP~e7OCDGsTUic~mtKYrl4wWRB5TDuDOwyjYgz3ZsP89bMaxOAbEIHeFc9nnE922yRRmPlbNzYb6HnQ1xSmoh1OFInmRUBuSvVHqRti9xk~2zdWdGaozKroYAZLbp9ve82R1lg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Prince George","date","2025-06-09T00:00:00Z","article","CB 31, an ordinance to expand how the county handles litter and overgrown weeds on commercial properties, was advanced out of the Prince George’s County Council Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee on June 9, 2025.

The measure directs the Department of Permitting, Inspections and Enforcement to remove and dispose of litter and weeds on commercial properties where a responsible owner fails to comply after a one‑year noncompliance period, and to perform those disposal duties on a recurring schedule (every two weeks or once per month). The original draft required owners to pay 100% of disposal costs plus a 10% administrative fee, mandated automatic doubling of unpaid costs after a due date, and raised certain civil penalties; sponsor and staff said a revised Draft 2 removes the 10% administrative fee, the automatic doubling provision and the proposed increase in maximum civil fines.

Why it matters: Sponsor remarks and committee discussion framed the bill as a tool to address repeat commercial offenders and reduce repeated site visits by county inspectors. The measure would shift direct cleanup responsibility to county staff when property owners do not maintain commercial lots, with the owner ultimately responsible for disposal costs under the ordinance as presented to the committee.

Sponsor Council member Oriotta said the measure responds to “habitual bad actors in our community” and aims to create “a system where the commercial property pays for this service, but it gets done on a regular basis.”

Agency and staff input: Committee staff said Ramon Gonzales drafted Draft 2 and Alex Hertel prepared the policy analysis and fiscal impact statement. Staff also said the Office of Law provided form comments and that the County Executive’s office had not taken a position at the committee hearing. An agency representative indicated general support but requested an offline meeting to discuss technical, friendly amendments.

Vote and next steps: The clerk called the roll and the committee recorded four affirmative votes; the motion to move the bill favorably carried 4‑0. Committee members said they expect remaining technical clarifications and agency questions can be resolved before full council introduction.

What the bill does not do here: The committee did not adopt the original provisions increasing civil fines to $5,000, did not retain the 10% administrative fee, and removed the automatic doubling of unpaid costs; those items were described as removed in Draft 2. The committee did not receive a final cost estimate or a signed position from the County Executive at the hearing.

Taper: Committee members thanked the sponsor and moved the measure forward; staff said they would follow up with agencies to address technical points before introduction to the full council.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Prince George - Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee - Jun 09, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","CB 31, an ordinance to expand how the county handles litter and overgrown weeds on commercial properties, was advanced out of the Prince George’s County Council Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee on June 9, 2025.","taxTitle","Prince George's County, Maryland","taxId",3378,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6536708,"Committee approves bill requiring annual council review of county repaving lists",404,488000,892000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3726976-874778481894e50207c83bf8b1fb78a7&start=488&end=892","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3726976-874778481894e50207c83bf8b1fb78a7/thumbnail_488000.jpg","/articles/6536708/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Committee-approves-bill-requiring-annual-council-review-of-county-repaving-lists","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6536708-b521c35b108f06357fee772476001c54/orig.mp4?Expires=1770440287&Signature=W9RtDim7dKSmVQ~2-jD9fMWRrVWX2YPZRCSc7CIpTRMB~vq1sWMu4uUsPowSpDUTuDMaNZcN74J7w25CaFNYULJXyAEJxBUUz6rSmkb5DGXNbYAVFj5UPdj8LmOKL1qBCDNVMEINW1VLSLvPkffXf1lNQYuldItw5OBtwaHxEH174iiMTC0870sbf4KjSJhPpd3alLCITkYwLdaE6KW3mUfgwTaJtPv1gxWuCBFEBR0HiMArczgcCdNRrEZGcwm8QepTJZowx4bx-r6yXAZI5XEcOLPmEe8pzaJ8TK02wn7AtLDcqhIYdZN6oghVYa20AU4Ly3bHGet8swxRyqMLZQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee voted unanimously on June 9, 2025 to move CB 30, a bill that formalizes a role for the Prince George’s County Council in reviewing the department’s proposed repaving list before contracts are approved.

The ordinance as discussed requires the Department of Public Works and Transportation (DPWT) to submit an annual list of roads proposed for repaving to the council for review, and directs that the repaving list be prepared in December for council consideration. Under the version presented to the committee, the department must present the repaving list for council review prior to the department approving paving contracts.

Policy and fiscal note: Alex Hertel told the committee the enactment of CB 30 will likely have a \"probable minimal adverse administrative and fiscal impact\" because of the additional department steps and submissions to the council. Hertel also said the measure could have an unfavorable indirect impact if the county departs from a pavement management system (including Pavement Condition Index priorities) that addresses roads across the entire county.

Agency view and sponsor work: Director Johnson of DPWT said department staff met with the bill sponsor and are comfortable with Draft 2 as revised; the director said the meetings were “informative and very productive” and described the resulting draft as “an excellent piece of legislation at this point.” The sponsor said the bill is intended to give council members a timely, predictable opportunity to advocate for their districts and to improve equity in repaving decisions.

Vote: The committee recorded a favorable motion by Mr. Harrison, seconded by Council member Begay, and the clerk recorded a 4‑0 vote to advance the bill.

Taper: Committee members said the bill will help council members know repaving schedules earlier and allow targeted advocacy; staff said DPWT and council will work to align the council review with the department’s pavement management system.","The Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee voted unanimously on June 9, 2025 to move CB 30, which requires DPWT to submit an annual repaving list to the County Council for review before paving contracts are approved.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6536705,"Committee amends and advances woodland and wildlife conservation changes after extensive debate on equity, reforestation funding and developer relief",6546,819000,7365000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3726976-874778481894e50207c83bf8b1fb78a7&start=819&end=7365","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3726976-874778481894e50207c83bf8b1fb78a7/thumbnail_819000.jpg","/articles/6536705/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Committee-amends-and-advances-woodland-and-wildlife-conservation-changes-after-extensive-debate-on-equity-reforestation-funding-and-developer-relief","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6536705-0f6e8b0635b8bc3fc1b83b22674204e3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770440287&Signature=btTjPm8oLjLFzJ45cI6CAS4bGUPcg1fygdawqkq-vkyrpHRjYEgEl6OtYT4YDyUEgRMM2WH5oSZOdnveKtfeNbFN~RRpogIdPIlSaHhkGkM-pG7xHoyE9EOhZjDRit1RZmyPBAKplgvzBt6GoJHYKt98adarJutr1cTWBSupDIfPJcc9MMz8V5JwO1txwAdeaK-offaW7FbM7MKV48GL5npvyRjvnxqavdhaJgBu3wUCDC3qTCroLwDFrkua6Pvp-FqwwsIG-98flWXQM4ck8Pny4-7mDqlcQMe7IePEqGW92PjBsuDtUevj~Zzz1Ng5GYtXar7YgH2OathxKG7VKg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee advanced CB 46 (as amended) on June 9, 2025 after an extended hearing that drew planning staff, the Department of the Environment, conservation groups, and developers to testify on tradeoffs between tree canopy preservation and redevelopment in transit‑oriented areas.

What the bill would change: The measure proposes revisions to Subtitle 25 (Trees and Vegetation) and would, among other changes discussed in committee, (1) adjust the ordinance’s treatment of certain transit‑oriented centers and a definition referenced as a “qualified project,” (2) reintroduce an exemption threshold for small residential construction activity, and (3) change allowable uses for Woodland Conservation Fund monies and the fee‑in‑lieu language. Sponsor and staff outlined a list of specific edits; during the hearing the sponsor proposed amendments that the committee adopted and which the sponsor committed to include in an updated Draft 2 prior to introduction.

Key context and conflict: Planning staff and the Department of the Environment warned that the proposed changes could increase canopy loss, exacerbate tree inequity in areas with low existing canopy, and potentially put the county out of step with state requirements under the Maryland Forest Conservation Act (the state’s woodland conservation framework). Planning presented maps and analysis showing lower canopy in several council districts and cautioned that the state’s 2023 revisions and a required “no net loss” approach could trigger substantial rewrite costs and restoration obligations if local regulations fall short.

Agency and stakeholder testimony: Planning Director Lakeisha Hall and planning staff recommended a set of ten technical amendments and urged retention of provisions that limit fee‑in‑lieu and keep variance procedures for on‑site thresholds. Dawn Hawkins Nixon of the Department of the Environment said fee‑in‑lieu revenues fund urban tree planting and urban canopy work and warned that narrowing allowable uses would materially reduce funding for street trees, community plantings and urban reforestation. The Sierra Club’s Janet Gingold urged the council to oppose CB 46, saying it would “exacerbate inequity and the distribution of trees” and would weaken climate resilience in lower‑canopy communities.

Developer and industry perspective: Developers and counsel argued the 2024 ordinance produced unintended consequences that make redevelopment difficult and reduce available bank credits; they urged restoration of fee‑in‑lieu flexibility so large redevelopment projects can proceed. Several industry witnesses said an inflexible on‑site threshold plus a shortage of available afforestation bank credits could render many redevelopment projects infeasible and remove development opportunities needed to grow the tax base.

Committee action and amendments: The sponsor presented a package of amendments that, among other changes, would delete the new “qualified project” definition, restore a smaller exemption threshold (10,000 square feet rather than 20,000), restore provisions allowing use of Woodland Conservation Fund monies for urban tree planting, and reinstate an inflation adjustment for fee‑in‑lieu. The committee voted to adopt the sponsor’s amendments (recorded vote on the amendments: 5‑0) and then voted to advance the bill as amended. The clerk recorded votes in committee resulting in a 4‑0 recorded favorable motion on the main bill as amended.

Why it matters: Planning staff and the Department of the Environment said the final mix of technical language will determine whether the county can meet state compliance obligations, protect urban canopy where it is most needed, and still allow redevelopment in transit‑oriented areas. The committee directed additional refinements and the sponsor agreed to finalize the updated draft and to meet with planning and environment staff before introduction.

Quotes from the hearing (selected):
• \"This legislation most likely will lead to more tree canopy loss within the county. It may exacerbate tree inequity within the county,\" Alex Hertel, policy analyst.
• \"We do work very hard to mitigate some of those impacts to the natural environment…these funds fund many of our community tree planting projects,\" Dawn Hawkins Nixon, Department of the Environment.
• \"There are projects that are fully developed that do not have any woodlands or any trees on them at all, which are now going to be required to plant a certain threshold of woodlands,\" Thomas Haller (developer counsel).

Taper: The committee advanced CB 46 as amended and asked the sponsor and staff to reconcile outstanding technical questions with planning and environment staff prior to full council introduction.","CB 46, which would alter parts of the county’s Woodland and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Ordinance, was advanced as amended after a lengthy hearing with planning, environment and outside stakeholders expressing concerns about canopy loss, state compliance and fee use; the committee adopted sponsor amendments and moved the bill out 4‑0.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee advances anti‑litter and weed enforcement measure requiring county to abate commercial properties

Committee approves bill requiring annual council review of county repaving lists

Committee amends and advances woodland and wildlife conservation changes after extensive debate on equity, reforestation funding and developer relief