Monday, April 14, 2008




April 13, 2008


A number of valuable new suggestions were made by those testifying at the April 10 hearing.  These are listed below for discussion and consideration at the task force meeting this Tuesday, 6-8 p.m.


  1. Reconvene the task force periodically for one year to review progress.
  2. Post the property and send notice of the dedication hearing to all residents of a new subdivision, 30 days in advance, so that any unfinished business may be pointed out before the developer's responsibilities are terminated.
  3. Have the county create home owners associations throughout the county.
  4. Require public notice of substantial changes in plans or funding for planned county facilities.
  5. Ensure Planning Board and Zoning Board booklets are kept up-to-date.
  6. On the County website home page have a link at the top on how to get information from the County.
  7. Have the County provide transcripts for residents’ appeals.
  8. Make the General Plan provisions a criterion which the Planning Board may apply.
  9. Require that County Council/Zoning Board members recuse themselves in cases concerning individuals or entities which have contributed $500 or more to them.
  10. Ensure our recommendations and all regulations use the word "adjacent" rather than "adjoining."  The former includes properties across the street, whereas the latter does not.
  11. Prohibit text amendments except for those proposed by County government or agencies in the public interest.
  12. Ensure Route 40, a master plan area, is covered by the proposed Design Advisory Panel.  Note: the Route 40 manual has still not been issued.
  13. Maintain a list of interpreters for hearings.
  14. Ensure information is promptly made available to the public, concerning zoning cases.
  15. Ensure the Office of Law does not advise Planning Board, Zoning Board or Council members that they should not ask certain questions or vote a certain way to avoid the possibility of a suit.
  16. Require that DPW as well as DPZ have a staff person visit the site in the review process of development applications and be alert to safety concerns.



Informally offered by Bridget Mugane.



Nina said...


Anonymous said...


Stephen Meskin said...

I am very pleased with all the recommendations made by the Task Force in "Draft (4/4)" and the April 10th suggestions as well. Any opposition to them should be required to be well-reasoned and NOT rely on the old-saw that they will hurt the business committee.

I have three suggested changes to the "Draft (4/4) document.

pg 2 item 2 last 6 words, change "...that require a technical..." to "...for which a technical staff report is provided." This would extend the recommendation to TSRs which turn out not to be required but are done anyway.

pg 7 item 3 might be more workable by allowing the 'minutes' to "summarize" concerns. Also it seems odd that the 'minutes' would include 'possible solutions' when the developer might have to do some research after the meeting to come up with possible solutions. Is an attachment to the minutes what is meant here? This concept of memorializing concerns and responding to them should be extended to all public testimony including all County Boards, the Executive, and the County Council. Concerns should be rolled up to all levels above the initial forum and when votes are taken, the voting members should provide in writing how they took each (summarized) concern into account in their vote. They may agree or disagree with the concern, in any case they need to say so and why.

pg 11 item 8 Expand the restriction to all county buildings on the County campus.

Anonymous said...

I attempted a comment earlier this week and this site did not allow a comment without the password.

Also, I noticed this site owner has a wife named 'Nina'. Are you a different Nina, or are you connected to the task force participant?

皮東 said...

When everything is coming your way, you are in the wrong lane.............................................