Vienna council narrows town survey, adds questions on lawn‑height and cell‑tower tolerance

The Town of Vienna’s council used a June work session to trim and reframe supplemental questions for an upcoming townwide survey, agreeing to include items on sidewalks, public parking, housing diversity and trees while removing operational or already‑active items such as routine street repaving.

Karen, the town’s director of communications, led the presentation and reported the raw custom‑question counts from the consultant: sidewalks and walkability drew seven supportive council votes, increased housing diversity and public green‑space items drew six each, and street‑tree planting drew five. “You’re really just taking the pulse of the community,” Karen said, describing the survey as a directional tool rather than a commitment to immediate action.

Why it matters: council members told staff they want the survey to produce actionable guidance rather than vague preferences. That led to decisions both to keep certain high‑priority, clearly framed items and to omit or reword topics that could produce misleading or unusable results.

Council members also agreed to test a question about allowing taller grass and other relaxed lawn‑maintenance rules to permit native plantings and pollinator habitat. One councilmember summarized a CSC memo that highlighted an apparent discrepancy in local standards, saying the town’s ordinance currently limits grass to 6 inches and that a 2010 law was cited as allowing 12 inches; other speakers cautioned the cited statute applies to counties, not cities, and said the legal detail needs clarification before any code change is framed for the public. The council directed staff to draft a neutral phrasing that explains trade‑offs such as aesthetic concerns and ticks.

The council debated but did not commit to asking residents about temporary uses of the town’s annex lot. Some members urged asking a specific operational question (for example, whether residents would support renting the lot for a season to relocate the farmers market or install temporary restrooms); others said such specific operational choices are better addressed in a focused work session because a broad community survey could return answers that lack the nuance the council needs.

On infrastructure and aesthetics, staff recommended—and the council agreed to include—a question asking whether Maple Avenue should retain or increase retail and restaurant presence and whether residents would accept greater building heights to encourage mixed‑use development. Members stressed the survey language should be simple (for example, asking whether residents would support three‑ or four‑story limits) while the staff or consultant provide a brief explanatory note about trade‑offs between height, density and new development.

Another topic added for the supplemental list is town‑level tolerance for cell‑phone tower heights on public property. Councilors discussed asking whether residents would accept towers up to a specific height (one example raised was 150 feet) and whether the question should distinguish town‑owned sites from private or school property. Staff will work with the consultant on neutral options and response choices.

Next steps and schedule: Karen said staff will clean up the existing questions, add the agreed items (grass‑height, cell‑tower heights, Maple Avenue choices) and circulate a revised draft for council feedback. The council also confirmed scheduling logistics for the July 6 meeting and follow‑up work sessions; staff will return with a second draft before the survey is finalized.

The work session produced direction and drafting assignments but no formal ordinance changes or binding votes; councilors emphasized that the survey is intended to gather directional public input rather than to authorize immediate policy changes.