Howard County Public Engagement in Land Use Taskforce (PELU)

2008-04-14T11:06:00.000-04:00

PELU TASKFORCE

NEW RECOMMENDATIONS

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.

Reconvene the task force periodically for one year to review progress.
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.
Have the county create home owners associations throughout the county.
Require public notice of substantial changes in plans or funding for planned county facilities.
Ensure Planning Board and Zoning Board booklets are kept up-to-date.
On the County website home page have a link at the top on how to get information from the County.
Have the County provide transcripts for residents’ appeals.
Make the General Plan provisions a criterion which the Planning Board may apply.
Require that County Council/Zoning Board members recuse themselves in cases concerning individuals or entities which have contributed $500 or more to them.
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.
Prohibit text amendments except for those proposed by County government or agencies in the public interest.
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.
Maintain a list of interpreters for hearings.
Ensure information is promptly made available to the public, concerning zoning cases.
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.
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.

2008-04-07T15:30:00.000-04:00

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

IMPROVING PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

IN THE LAND USE PROCESS

DISCLAIMER

The following is a list of potential recommendations under consideration by the PELU task force. Final recommendations will not be made until after the public hearing on 4/10/08 when the task force has had a chance to deliberate and consider each recommendation.

Utilize the sign number on zoning signs

Let people call a set number to find out more information
Have a site on the website where people can enter the number and find out more about the proposal including how people can give feedback, who the developer is and how to contact the developer.

Mandate that technical staff reports be made available on the web two weeks prior to the hearing/meeting for all land use hearings/meetings that require a technical staff report.

Have a centralized land use docket which would include planning board, appeals board, and hearing examiner schedules. Docket should have at least a one month lead time.

Issue: Often a developer will contact county officials about developing a property and decisions are made before a formal submission is made.

Solution: Maintain a list on the web of all such communications so that citizens can be aware of an impending change in a property.

Develop a partnership to teach land use process (DPZ University on land use, zoning, how Planning and Zoning works).

Create a handbook for citizens on land use and how they can participate in the process.

Allow people to sign up by email so that they are notified when a new development is submitted within a certain radius of them (allow them to choose from a 1 mile radius, a 5 mile radius or all). Draw on the database collected regularly by the county from several management companies that handle many of the homeowners associations. Allow self-managed homeowners associations, neighborhood associations and civic groups to also sign up.

Have a web page on the county website devoted to ways/links to how a citizen can get information from the government.

Have all email correspondence from citizens acknowledged so that they know it was received.

A. GENERAL PLAN PROCESS:

Before the process begins, educate the public in the process and opportunities for participation.

Because the General Plan process is stretched out over such a long period (from appointment of Task Force to final approval of plan was18 months for 2000 Plan), there is concern that public interest may wane due to its sheer length. Consider tightening up the process, with definitive start and end points for each part of the process.

Hold initial district meetings early in process (before Planning Board meeting) for public input on guidelines (this was done for 2000 Plan and worked well).

Keep public hearings and forums already designated on General Plan Process flow chart.

General Plan Task Force meetings should be open to public observation but not participation.

Consider the use of “push technology” to deliver drafts of General Plan guidelines and chapters to individuals and organizations that indicate an interest (via sign-up with email address) in receiving this information as it is evolving.

Consider “town hall” type meetings for both General Plan guidelines and General Plan that would be delivered via GTV, web streaming, and/or other suitable technology.

The public can be encouraged to submit comments either verbally at meeting or by email to a central internet address (blog page).

Comments would be open to review by all interested parties including the public at large.

Members of the Planning Board, DPZ, and County Council would be encouraged to “click the box” to activate a return message to the poster of the comment indicating it was reviewed and by whom.

The County should develop a General Plan monitoring report (every 2-3 years) to update and mark progress.

B. COMPREHENSIVE REZONING PROCESS:

At the outset, clearly define the process with specific deadlines and notification procedures. Educate the public on the process and opportunities for input.

Have an “open suggestion” season when staff, members of the public, County Council members, and property owners can suggest appropriate zoning categories for a particular piece of property.

Suggestions should include a statement explaining why the suggested category is consistent with and furthers the goals and objectives of the General Plan.

All suggestions will be catalogued by area and made available to the public by various means, for example, “push technology”, web posting, and/or interactive maps that highlight areas of change that impact specific districts.

The Planning Board’s recommendations would be limited to suggestions meeting the foregoing criteria. Public comment to the Planning Board can be made at a public meeting or via email through a web page open for public review. Board members can “click the box” to send a return message indicating that the comment was read and by whom.

All properties being considered for rezoning should be posted.

The county will send written notice to property owners and adjoining property owners of a particular property which is being suggested for rezoning, including an explanation of opportunities to engage in the process before the Planning Board and County Council.

Public comment to the County Council can be made verbally at an open hearing or via email sent to a dedicated website that is open to public review. Council members and their staff will be encouraged to “click the box” to indicate they have read the communication.

The County Council should set a cut-off date by which all amendments to the comprehensive rezoning ordinance must be made before there is a final vote.

All rezoning amendments should be generally available to the public, organized in a way that allows the public to easily identify the properties. The use of “push technology” should be considered.

The period between the cut-off dates for amendments and the final vote must be of ample duration (30 days) to allow for public comment.

Keep the current opportunities for public input as indicated on the Comprehensive Rezoning Process flow chart. Change the flowchart to read “County Council Amendments” after box for “County Council 1^st Hearing”, and before box for “County Council 2^nd Hearing”.

SBZ/sbz

Introduction: There are currently opportunities for public involvement in the land use process including serving on task forces, meeting with developers and DPZ staff, and testifying at hearings. The County website has become an increasingly useful way for the public to obtain information, and appointment of the DPZ Ombudsman has created a contact point for concerned citizens. However, the processes are complex and confusing and some occur without citizen input. PELU Committee 3 has gathered numerous suggestions on how to improve public engagement; we have not evaluated them on the merits or approved them. These are presented below as a catalyst for public comment which can be considered and incorporated in making final recommendations. The public is also strongly encouraged to attend and participate in our meetings

A. DPZ OMBUDSMAN

Have a brochure on County website and at hearings, describing how to participate in the land use process and how to file a complaint or appeal, including common scenarios as examples. Point out that complaints should be lodged before DPZ releases the developer’s bond.

Ensure public is involved in formative stage of major legislation, either by a task force or committee, as well as by invitation to citizen organizations or individuals who sign a register.

Have Ombudsman ensure that individuals and organizations may sign up for automatic notification of proposed major land use legislation.

Develop a list of concerned citizens, home owners associations (HOAs), village boards and citizen organizations which have an interest in land use issues, for notification purposes.

Place Ombudsman position under the County Executive rather than being a DPZ Deputy Director.

B. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS

Notices

Ensure that signs of presubmission meetings and development applications are placed on the site so as to be legible from street.

Attach a box to on-site signs, with a DPZ handout describing the whole process, including when and how to have input and what issues are relevant. Include a phone number at which that recorded information is available as well as the developer’s description of the proposal itself.

Publish notices of land use meetings and hearings in the most widely-read newspapers including the Columbia Flier/Howard County Times, on the same page or place in the format as one of the first categories of items, in a visible box frame. Notices to be published on a consistent day.

Send notices of meetings to all adjacent residents, HOAs, community associations, village boards, and individuals who have requested notice, in that area; DPZ is to maintain a list, by district.

Pre-submission community meetings:

Require presubmission meetings convened by the developer for all development proposals, including commercial/retail, and government projects, in all zoning districts.

Have DPZ provide a facilitator for all presubmission meetings, to explain procedures and to help resolve differences between the developer and community.

Require that the developer’s minutes of the meeting state the concerns, followed by possible solutions.

Require the developer to hold a second community meeting, to review the site development plan before it is submitted, and/or if the number of units is increased.

Create incentives for developers to work with the community; could include expanding Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning to allow flexibility useful in resolving differences with the community; allowing transferable development rights; expedited processing; and site-specific incentives.

DPZ Review

Publicize how residents can become an “interested party” who will receive issuances on land development applications, and how they can meet with DPZ staff assigned to the application.

Ensure staff are responsive, helpful and courteous to citizens with telephone or in-person inquiries.

Require DPZ to have a staff person walk the property as part of the initial review process.

Use 8 ½” x 11” format for Technical Staff Reports so they can be printed off the website or be faxed.

Attach the Agency Review Comments to the Technical Staff Report on the website; these are expert opinions which should be made available to the public.

Amend regulations to address matters of frequent concern by the community.

Traffic and Environmental Studies

To help level the playing field, have the County or its contractor do all traffic and environmental studies for development applications; to be funded by fees to be paid by developers into a common fund. This could reduce the need for residents to retain private consultants to testify concerning flaws in studies done by developers/owners.

Waivers

Place applications for waivers on website; public can sign up to be informed of applications.
Require a pre-submission community meeting for waivers requested prior to development application.

Post notice of waiver applications on site.

Government Development Projects

Require the same due process procedures (notice, presubmission meeting, hearing, etc.) and the same substantive standards such as the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO), for government development proposals just as for private proposals.

Design Advisory Panel

Establish a Design Advisory Panel to review all development proposals in all districts, to consider aesthetics as well as the public interest and consistency with the General Plan and other guiding documents. Ensure maximum public participation, to include 30-day advance notice of DAP reviews on the County website and review of presubmission meeting minutes which shall include citizens’ concerns and proposed solutions.

C. PLANNING BOARD

County Website

Have the Planning Board (PB) agenda link on main page or at least on the page with the category, “Departments.”

Have simple rules for testifying on website and as a handout at hearings.

Allow e-mail sign up to testify (as does Council).

Allow e-mail testimony and have a link to facilitate it.

List ZRA and other proposals by the first of each month rather than the middle, when it is too late to get organization board approvals and study proposals.

Have a plain-English summary for each ZRA.
Have an option for signing up to receive PB agenda when it first comes out (as does the Council).

Text Amendments and Map Amendments

Discourage rezoning via ZRAs for individual parcels (“text amendments”); rezoning should be in the Comp Zoning process whenever possible.

Require that all map and text amendments be proposed by DPZ or a County Council member, to ensure merit.

Establish a high burden of proof to be met by developers/owners requesting any zoning change.

Instead of a continuing stream, require that the Planning Board hold meetings quarterly to consider text and map amendments. Post the proposals on the County website at least 30 days prior to a hearing, so residents/organizations have adequate time to review them and consult professionals if they wish.

Require owner or author of the proposal (if it is the Council or DPZ) to state the intent and justification for the request, including consistency with the General Plan and benefit to the County.

Establish a system that would allow public input while a ZRA is still in draft form and can be revised before formal submission.

Require that the Technical Staff Report identify all other properties in the County which would be affected.

Require the owner or County to post the properties for which amendments are sought and to mail notices to adjacent owners and to the community/homeowners association, if one exists, and to hold a presubmission community meeting, with minutes of concerns and possible solutions to be made part of the application.

All attendees of presubmission meetings are to be kept apprised of any changes to the request.

Maximize use of the County website to keep the public informed of map and text amendments.

Rules of Procedure

Have them be subject to County Council approval as well as by the PB.

Hearings

All County Hearings

For all County entities which hold hearings, have the procedures as uniform as possible, and made available to the public on the website and in handouts at hearings.

Have a visible, established place in the local newspapers for information on public hearings; rather than in the back of paper under notices. Make it a requirement that hearings be published in the main part of the Columbia Flier/Howard County Times, framed in bold lines.

Allow advance e-mail sign in for those who will testify in person.

Have a place in the County building where testimony can be recorded with web cam technology.

Allow e-mail testimony for a specified period before and after the hearing, and acknowledge receipt of the testimony by automated e-mail response.

Allow testimony by video e-mail.

Use the video screen in the entrance of the Howard Building to display the type of testimony relevant in the hearing or hearings that night.

Do not permit rental of Howard Bldg. rooms for groups just before and during hearings.

For DPZ meetings held in a particular district, if some important topic has been left out, contact the attendees and convene a second meeting.

Ensure the Technical Staff Report is available on time and is posted on the County website by that deadline and, if not, reschedule hearing.

Ensure the Technical Staff Report has a plain English summary at the beginning, explaining the reasons and effects of the proposal, and listing the relevant staff person and contact information (e-mail and phone) to respond to questions from the public.

Broadcast the Council and PB work sessions so the public can see the outcome of their testimony.

Establish a standard which will more frequently require an additional hearing for substantive amendments or those which are “material.” Require that those who testified, be notified in advance of the next hearing.

Have a People’s Counsel as a party which represents the public interest in any type of land use issue in any forum, as do Baltimore, Harford and Montgomery Counties.

Planning Board "Meetings" (non quasi-judicial hearings)

Planning Board meetings and hearings should be held on the same days of each month to facilitate public attendance.

Require a Planning Board “meeting” or “hearing” for all development proposals in all districts, to include commercial, retail and other business uses.

Treat all speakers with respect and make to feel that their participation is valued.

Allow substitution of speakers where hearing is continued; put in written procedures and explain what documentation is needed, if any.

Allow organizations to testify, through representatives who are allowed 5 minutes to speak.

Allow organizations to register annually and designate their representative(s), without needing to provide further written authorization.
Spell out whether established organizations need to formally designate a representative, whether for each hearing or case, for what length of time, and how that designation is to be presented. (Make it as easy as possible.)

Have the PB’s Executive Secretary (this is the Director of DPZ) present but not be seated at the table with the PB at hearings, and work sessions. The PB is a citizen body and should not rely on DPZ for guidance.

Have the PB’s Counsel (the County Solicitor’s office) present at all hearings and work sessions, as the source of legal advice, rather than the developer’s attorney. If necessary, have Counsel available by cell phone.

Allow some latitude in testimony, explicitly assigning it “the weight to which it is entitled.”

Planning Board "Hearings" (quasi-judicial)

Spell out how opponents are to choose a representative to present witnesses, cross-examination, discovery, etc.

Allow any member of the public to be a party and to cross-examine witnesses; requirement is only that they sign up by e-mail or in person, including additional sign up allowed for hearings which are continued.

Make technical staff available for examination/cross-examination concerning the Technical Staff Report.

County Budget Hearings

Post detailed budget information on the County website 15-30 days in advance of hearing, easily visible.

D. ZONING BOARD

Board Composition

1. Have an independent appointed Zoning Board instead of having the County Council perform this function, to assure the public that decisions are not influenced by campaign contributions.

Zoning Counsel

Note: There is currently a Zoning Board Counsel who represents the public interest; this is a land use attorney on contract to the County.

Have Counsel give an opening statement.

Written opening statements could be submitted in advance to allow the ZB to rule on limiting issues for testimony.

Make DPZ technical staff available for examination/cross-examination concerning the Technical Staff Report.

Alternatively or in addition, allow interrogatories to technical staff.

All Technical Staff Reports be made available at least 15 days in advance of hearing, and posted on County website.

E. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

Post proposed amendments to Design Manuals, and other matters, on the website well in advance of hearing. Include a rationale, in plain English.

F. ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE (APFO)

Make public opinion, as expressed in testimony and minutes of presubmission meetings, a criterion which must be considered, particularly with respect to local and downstream traffic impact.

Require downstream traffic impact be included in traffic studies and establish limits.

Extend APFO to cover government entities, schools.

G. APPEALS

Require mediation prior to a hearing.

Adopt the federal rule which grants standing to any taxpayer, to appeal a land-use decision (see 2008 Md. House Bill 246).

Expand the right of referendum.

H. IMPLEMENTATION OF PELU RECOMMENDATIONS

Establish method for agencies to report on status of implementation.

* * *

Submitted by Bridget Mugane on behalf of PELU Committee 3:

Brian England, Chair

William Erskine

Julia Mattis

Bridget Mugane

Sang Oh

Susan Scheidt

Tim Sosinski

Andrew Stack

FW: DRAFT PELU RECOMMENDATIONS

2008-04-07T15:27:00.000-04:00

From: Theo Wimberly [mailto:TWimberly@howardcountymd.gov]
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 3:10 PM
To: Frank Mirable; JMattis256@aol.com; sbzaret@aol.com; timski@ariumae.com; abohorfoush@comcast.net; beengland@comcast.net; cmhudson@comcast.net; fsatty@comcast.net; psscheidt@comcast.net; soh.lawoffice@comcast.net; st.white@comcast.net; Williamlewis1@comcast.net; cathy.ward@copt.com; pskalny@darslaw.com; judydaveg@gmail.com; Tom@HomeBuilders.org; Calvin Ball; Caryn Lasser; Courtney Watson; Greg Fox; Jen Terrasa; Karen Knight; Lisa Nissley; Mary Kay Sigaty; Melania Pender; Sheila Tolliver; Stephanie Scott; Terry Chaconas; jh@jameshoward.us; rschimel@milesstockbridge.com; William E. Erskine; ktaylor@taylorlegal.com; Andrew.stack@verizon.net; TERPSWIN02@verizon.net; thepoquettes@yahoo.com
Subject: DRAFT PELU RECOMMENDATIONS

Task force Members,

I know I promised you that I would have the draft recommendations uploaded on our PELU webpage this afternoon. Unfortunately, the County's webpage is experiencing technical difficulties and I am unable to upload the recommendations at this time. Therefore, I have attached the Draft Recommendations document to this message for your information. Feel free to forward the document to any of your colleagues/constituents/interested parties. Also, you can direct individuals to our PELU blog site at: http://howardcountypelu.blogspot.com/

I will upload the document as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience.

-Theodore

FW: PELU Task Force

2008-04-04T16:04:00.000-04:00

Katherine, in the interest of full disclosure, I feel it is only
appropriate that our full email exchange be provided. I don't want
anyone to get the idea that we did not try to accommodate your schedule.
Unfortunately, with few exceptions, task force members were not
available to meet during the day - Although I would have been happy to.

Sincerely,

William E. Erskine, Esquire
Reese & Carney LLP
10715 Charter Drive, Suite 200
Columbia, Maryland 21044
(Office) 410-740-4600
(Fax) 410-730-7729
(Cell) 443-864-8844
Email: WEE @reese-carney.com

-----Original Message-----
From: William E. Erskine
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 9:17 AM
To: Katherine L. Taylor, Esq.
Subject: RE: PELU Task Force

Katherine, we will work the schedule thing out. You can't quit. We
need your input.....And yes there is a Daddy track with sensitivities as
well. Family first!

William E. Erskine

-----Original Message-----
From: "Katherine L. Taylor, Esq." <ktaylor@taylorlegal.com>
To: "'William E. Erskine'" <wee@Reese-Carney.com>; "'Howard Weinstein'"
<st.white@comcast.net>
Sent: 1/24/2008 8:45 AM
Subject: RE: PELU Task Force

Bill,

When you said you had a 4th grader to put on the bus at 9:00 AM, I was
glad,
because I also have a 4th grader to put on the bus, and I am still
sensitive
to the whole "mommy track" sterotype! I guess there is also a "daddy
track."

Since the last few meetings have been informational, I suppose I have
not
missed much that I do not already know. That's good.

The best time for me is during the period from 9-5 daily. I can be
available in the evenings, but typically only when my husband is in town
and
his travel schedule is unpredictable. The 7-9 AM slot is virtually
impossible for me to make at any time. I hope that when we break into
smaller groups, the groups can schedule meetings that best accommodate
those
folks.I also am not opposed to an occasional weekend meeting, especially
if
we are inviting public participants.

Last but not least, thank you both very much for volunteering to chair
this
task force. It is a huge commitment and your efforts have not and will
not
go unnoticed!

Best,

Katherine

Katherine L. Taylor, Esquire

From: William E. Erskine [mailto:wee@Reese-Carney.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 6:30 AM
To: Katherine L. Taylor, Esq.; Howard Weinstein
Subject: RE: PELU Task Force

Katherine, you are not alone. I have to put my 4th grader on the bus in
the
morning, which doesn't come till 9 AM. Others have expressed similar
difficulties with the scheduling of the meetings. Part of what has
influenced the scheduling of the last few meetings is the desire to
accommodate the schedules of DPZ staff. These sessions have been
informational and have involved presentations from DPZ staff. We are
nearly
through with the purely informational meetings and I anticipate that the
meeting schedules will be varied in the future in order to better
accommodate the schedules of the task force members. What is your best
time? Personally, I would not be opposed to having a few of our
meetings on
weekends, maybe at a library if we can. Howard, what are your thoughts?

-----Original Message-----
From: Katherine L. Taylor, Esq. [mailto:ktaylor@taylorlegal.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:16 PM
To: William E. Erskine; Howard Weinstein
Subject: PELU Task Force

Bill and Howard,

I have not been able to attend the last two meetings of the PELU Task
Force
due to the time of day they were held. I have school-aged daughters and
my
husband travels frequently, so the 4-6 PM time frame is almost
impossible
for me to meet with any consistency. I would like to be involved, but
if
the meeting times remain, I fear that my involvement will be so limited
that
I may as well simply withdraw from the task force.

I would like your views as to whether other members have difficulty
making
meetings at this time during the day, or if I am an exception.

Thanks!

Katherine

2008-04-04T15:46:00.000-04:00

Katherine, if you would like to comment on the potential recommendations, please feel free. A lot of task force members have had great difficulty attending a lot of the meetings. If your schedule permits, feel free to jump back in. We have a public forum on April 10 if you can make it.

Sincerely,

William E. Erskine, Esquire

Reese & Carney LLP

10715 Charter Drive, Suite 200

Columbia, Maryland 21044

(Office) 410-740-4600

(Fax) 410-730-7729

(Cell) 443-864-8844

Email: WEE @reese-carney.com

Scheduling of Task Force Meetings

2008-04-04T13:42:00.003-04:00

Task Force Members and Others,

I accepted the job of participating in this Task Force out of a real interest to provide meaningful input. Unfortunately, the process as to how my input would be received was prohibitive, and I was unable to further participate. Early on, I sent the following message to the then chairs, Bill Erskine and Howard Weinstein:

Bill and Howard,

I have not been able to attend the last two meetings of the PELU Task Force due to the time of day they were held. I have school-aged daughters and my husband travels frequently, so the 4-6 PM time frame is almost impossible for me to meet with any consistency. I would like to be involved, but if the meeting times remain, I fear that my involvement will be so limited that I may as well simply withdraw from the task force.

I would like your views as to whether other members have difficulty making meetings at this time during the day, or if I am an exception. Thanks! Katherine

Since that date, it appears that the meetings of the task force have remained at that afternoon/evening time, despite requests at the first meeting to vary the times so that more members could attend. Further, after the subcommittees were formed, I sent a message to Theo stating:

Theo,
I am interested in serving on the Comp Zoning committee, but as I have said before, I cannot make meetings that go into the evening hours.
Katherine

Since that date, I have not heard from the chair of that subcommittee about attending a meeting or providing input in another way.

Why am I publicizing these communications? Because my frustration over my inability to attend these meetings is much like the frustration felt by many citizens who want to be engaged in land use matters but cannot because of competing demands. This lack of participation is many times seen as apathy, and what happens is that only those persons with sufficient time, resources and/or desire remain active and engaged. It is only when a land use decision affects a person directly that the person finds the time, resources or desire to become engaged. For owners and developers, this happens any time there is interest in developing or improving a property. For citizens, this happens only when the land use decision is seen as one that will negatively affect their lives or their property. Thus, the only times the citizenry and the developers are truly engaged are when there are conflicts between what the public wants and what the developer is proposing.

The challenge, and the goal of this task force, is to find ways to increase positive public participation. Public participation benefits not only the persons who may oppose land use decisions, but those who are seeking land use changes or development approvals. This challenge should not be characterized as "citizen vs. developer," such that any change benefitting one will work to the disadvantage of the other. It is to the advantage of all of us (citizens, developers, landowners, lawyers, etc.) to ensure that rules, guidelines and procedures are transparent, straightforward, clear and consisent, and that they are enforced and implemented consistently. A person should not need to hire counsel to find out how to file a zoning application or a zoning action appeal, as the rules should be clear enough for citizens and landowners to understand and for government staff to readily implement. It has been suggested to me that if the rules become too clear, then perhaps I would be creating less paid work for myself (as a land use attorney). To the contrary, my time and the public's dollars could be spent on more meaningful issues, instead of arguing about the intent of an ambiguous rule or whether the letters on a sign were large enough.

At the beginning of the task force effort, then chair Howard Weinstein asked that the members post their top ten list of issues that should be addressed. I responded, in part, as follows:

The rules of the BOA and Hearing Examiner are inconsistent with the Zoning Regulations and the Howard County Code with respect to many procedural requirements. For example, in order to file an appeal of an administrative decision, an appellant is required to make an appointment with DPZ staff to file the appeal. This requirement is not set forth in either the rules, the regulations or the Code, yet when an appellant appears at DPZ to file an appeal, they are given a hard time filing an appeal if they did not previously make an appointment. Further, the procedures regarding presummission meetings are set forth in many different sections of the rules and regulations, and are inconsistent in many respects.

Since I have been unable to participate in this task force, I would urge those of you who have been participating and those of you who will implement certain of the recommended changes, to bear in mind that access, clarity and consistency are of the utmost importance, perhaps even more important at times than substantive changes. For when people believe that they have access to the process, when they understand the rules, and when they believe that the rules are being applied fairly and consistently, they are more accepting of adverse actions.

One way to improve access is to make sure meeting times are convenient and to provide alternate ways for all to be engaged in the process. Had those goals been met with regard to the Task Force meetings, I would have been able to attend the meetings or provide meaningful input in other ways.

FW: ZRA Batching Bill Streamlines Zoning Regulation AmendmentProcess

2008-04-01T06:55:00.001-04:00

Dear PELU Task Force Members:

Councilperson Courtney Watson has introduced a new bill relating to the filing of Zoning Regulation Amendments (ZRA’s). The bill is scheduled for a public hearing on April 22, 2008 at 7:30 pm in the Bannecker room of the George Howard office building. Ms. Watson has requested review and comment of the proposed legislation by the task force. Please post your comments to the blog site or email them to me or James Howard directly.

-----Original Message-----
From: Courtney Watson [mailto:CWatson@howardcountymd.gov]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:24 PM
To: Courtney Watson
Subject: ZRA Batching Bill Streamlines Zoning Regulation AmendmentProcess

Dear Resident,

I am pleased to share with you a copy of a bill that I have pre-filed today for April introduction at the County Council. This bill affects zoning regulation amendments commonly referred to as ZRAs. ZRAs sometimes result in positive changes for zoning categories but at other times are attempts to rezone a single property outside the ‘change or mistake’ standard required by the Zoning Board.

The County Council is the final authority on approval of ZRAs and we sometimes feel besieged by the number and complexity of the ZRAs, particularly when they occur randomly amidst all our other legislative work. Citizens and citizen groups also find the process difficult to manage. In order to help citizens and legislators better track the changes brought on by ZRAs, this bill would require that ZRA petitions from developers and/or landowners be introduced at two designated times within the year. This will allow the Dept. of Planning and Zoning to more efficiently handle the technical staff report requirements and for the Planning Board and the County Council to focus their attention on regulation changes.

Further, batching the ZRA requests will allow citizen groups such as the League of Women Voters, HCCA, GECA, St. Johns’ Neighborhood Association, Friends of Font Hill, the Columbia Association, and the general citizenry to know exactly when potential changes to zoning are being proposed by developers and landowners, so citizen input is increased and transparency in zoning changes improved.

The public hearing on this bill will be held on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the Banneker Room of the George Howard Building.* As always, I welcome your input on this issue. Please contact me by phone or email with comments or questions.

Sincerely,
Courtney

Courtney Watson
Chairperson - Howard County Council
District 1 Representative
410/313-3110
410/313-3297 fax

*Electronic sign up is available for County Council public hearings: http://www.co.ho.md.us/CountyCouncil/CC_GiveTestimonySignup.asp

2008-04-01T06:46:00.000-04:00

Introduced

Public hearing

Council action

Executive action

Effective date

County Council of Howard County, Maryland

2008 Legislative Session Legislative Day No.______

BILL NO. – 2008

Introduced by: Courtney Watson

AN ACT amending the Howard County Code to permit the general public to submit zoning regulation text amendments only during two specified periods per year; and generally relating to zoning regulation text amendments.

______________________________________________________________________________

Introduced and read first time , 2008. Ordered posted and hearing scheduled.

By order

Sheila M. Tolliver, Administrator to the County Council

Having been posted & notice of time & place of hearing and title of Bill having been published according to Charter, the Bill was read for a second time at a

public hearing on , 2008 and concluded on , 2008.

By order ___________________________________ Sheila M. Tolliver, Administrator to the County Council

This Bill was read the third time , 2008 and Passed , Passed with amendments , Failed .

By order_____________________________________ Sheila M. Tolliver, Administrator to the County Council

Sealed with the County Seal and presented to the County Executive for approval this day of , 2008 at a.m./p.m.

By order_____________________________________ Sheila M. Tolliver, Administrator to the County Council

Approved/vetoed by the County Executive on , 2008.

____________________________ Ken Ulman , County Executive

NOTE; [[text in brackets]] indicates deletions from existing law; TEXT IN ALL CAPITALS indicates additions to existing law.

~~Strikeout~~ indicates material deleted by amendment; Underlining indicates material added by amendment.

Section 1. Be it enacted by the County Council of Howard County, Maryland, that Section 16.208 “Zoning Regulation Text Amendments.”, of Subtitle 2 “Zoning”, of Title 16 “Planning, Zoning and Subdivisions and Land Development Regulations” of the Howard County Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Howard County Code

Subtitle 2. Zoning

Section 16.208. Zoning Regulation Text Amendments.

[[(a) Petition: Any person, the director of the department of planning and zoning, the members of the county council or any duly appointed county board may petition the county council for an amendment, repeal, or change to the text of the zoning regulations.]]

(a) A petition to amend or repeal the text of a zoning regulation may be filed with the County Council in accordance with the following schedule:

(1) Any person may file a petition from March 1 to March 31, both inclusive, and from September 1 to September 30, both inclusive; and

(2) The Director of the Department of Planning and Zoning or a member of the County Council may file a petition at any time if it is deemed that the petition is in the public interest, including during the periods designated by paragraph (1) of this subsection.

(b) Copy of Petition to Department of Planning and Zoning and Planning Board; Recommendations: The county council shall deliver a copy of the proposed zoning regulation text amendment to the department of planning and zoning and to the planning board. The department of planning and zoning shall prepare and submit a technical staff report and recommendation to the county council on the proposed text amendment petition. The planning board shall also prepare and submit a recommendation to the county council on the proposed text amendment petition.

(c) Consideration of Proposed Text Amendment: When exercising the Zoning Authority of Howard County with respect to the consideration of and decision on a proposed zoning regulation text amendment, the county council shall proceed in the following manner:

(1) Introduction of bill. After the county council has:

(i) Received a final technical staff report and recommendation from the department of planning and zoning; and

(ii) A recommendation and report from the planning board; the county council shall introduce a bill proposing the adoption of the text amendment as submitted by the petitioner or as amended pursuant to recommendations of the department of planning and zoning, the planning board or the county council.

(2) County council bill procedures. The county council shall vote on the proposed bill according to county council bill procedures.

Section 2. Be it further enacted by the County Council of Howard County, Maryland, that the provisions of this act shall become effective 61 days after enactment.

Blog Now Open For Comments

2008-04-01T06:19:00.002-04:00

If I have done it correctly, the blog site should now be open for comments by the general public. As I understand the operation of the blog site, comments may only be made in response to postings on the blog site. Unfortunately, the ability to create a posting on this google blog site appears to be limited to a finite number (100) of designated authors. Therefore, I have not been able to find a way to permit the general public to create a new post directly to the blog site. If anyone is aware of how this can be done, please let me know. In the meantime, the public should feel free to comment on any posting on the site. Also, the public should feel free in their comments to introduce new topics and/or suggestions for discussion.

2008-03-25T17:13:00.000-04:00

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IN LAND USE

TASK FORCE

March 25, 2008

AGENDA

Approval of Minutes

Issues/Announcements (Chairpersons, Task force membership)

* Public Forum, Thursday 4/10, 7pm (Banneker Room)

Work group updates

* Assignment of unassigned members

* Appointment of work group facilitators and scribes

* Reports

* Break out meetings

Open Floor

Next meeting dates: *Public Forum April 10, 2008, 7pm

*April 15, 2008, 6pm, Ellicott Room

*April 30, 2008, 6pm, Ellicott Room

Committee 3 meeting notes update

2008-03-13T09:25:00.002-04:00

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE
LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

PELU Committee 3

Informal Draft (no official status)
Offered by Bridget Mugane
3/11/08

IMPLEMENTATION OF PELU RECOMMENDATIONS

Establish method for agencies to report on status of implementation.

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS

Presubmission meetings

Strengthen citizen input as follows:

- ensure notice signs are placed so as to be legible from street
- have a box on signs with DPZ handout describing the whole process, including when and how to have input and what issues are relevant. Have a phone number at which that recorded information is available as well as the developer’s description of the proposal itself.
- send notice of meetings to all HOAs, community associations, village boards, etc. in that area.
- provide list of relevant HOAs, associations, etc. to developer
- have a DPZ facilitator who explains the process and conducts the meeting
- require that the developer’s minutes of the meeting state the concerns, followed by possible solutions
- encourage the developer to accommodate citizen concerns by granting incentives if agreement can is reached
- hold an additional meeting to review the proposal which shows the proposed layout, prior to submission for approval of the layout

Appeals

Require mediation prior to a hearing.

Substantive Regulations

Amend regulations to address items of frequent concern by the community.
Increase the use of transferable development rights to solve impasses with the community and encourage smart growth.

Waivers

Waiver applications are on website; public can sign up to be informed of applications.
Pre-submission waivers would require a community meeting.

Organizations

Improve notice to HOAs, village boards, organizations of relevant applications.

Design Advisory Panel

If established for master planning areas, ensure full public participation with in-person testimony, 15-day advance notice, etc.

DPZ OMBUDSMAN

Place position under the County Executive rather than being a DPZ Deputy Director, to ensure impartiality.

PLANNING BOARD

County Website

Have PB agenda link on main page or at least on page “Departments.”
Have PB simple rules for testifying here and as a handout at hearings.
Allow e-mail testimony and have a link to facilitate it.
List ZRA and other proposals by the first of each month rather than the middle, when it is too late to get organization board approvals and study proposals
Have a plain-English summary for each ZRA (see under ZRAs, below).
Have an option for signing up to receive PB list of proposals submitted for hearing, and the hearing date (as does the Council) when it first comes out
Allow e-mail sign up to testify (as does Council)

ZRAs

Have a plain-English summary, including effect and reason needed, and name and number of the relevant agency staffer who can answer questions (like the Federal Register). Provide this just under the ZRA on the website agenda and as a handout at hearings.

Text Amendments

Rezoning by ZRAs for individual parcels (“text amendments”) should be discouraged; rezoning should be in the Comp Rezoning process whenever possible.
Instead of a continuing stream, require they be submitted periodically in groups at set intervals, and allow at least 30 days so residents/organizations have time to review them.
Post the properties for which amendments are sought, and others which would be affected, and require a community meeting in advance.
Require that the other properties which would be affected, be identified for the Technical Staff Report.
Require they be proposed by DPZ or a County Council member, to ensure merit.

Rules of Procedure

Have them be subject to County Council approval (not just by PB itself).

Hearings

All County Hearings

For all county entities which hold hearings, make the procedures as uniform as possible, which are made available to the public on the website and in handouts at hearings. Do not permit rental of Howard Bldg. rooms for groups just before and during hearings.
Have a visible, established place in the local newspapers for information on public hearings; not buried in back of paper under notices. Make it a requirement that hearings be published in the main part of the Columbia Flier/Howard County Times.
Have a place in the county building where testimony can be recorded with web cam technology.
Allow testimony by video e-mail.
Use the video screen in the entrance of the Howard Building to display the type of testimony relevant in the hearing or hearings that night.
For DPZ meetings held in a particular district, if some important topic has been left out, contact the attendees and convene a second meeting.
Ensure the Technical Staff Report is available on time and, if not, reschedule hearing.
Allow e-mail sign up for testimony.
Allow organizations to register once a year and designate their spokesperson for the year in lieu of having to present credentials at each hearing.
Require that record be held open for e-mail testimony for a specified period before and after the hearing
Have hearing rules, and procedures for public input be consistent as much as possible before all public bodies.

Planning Board hearings

Ensure PB treats citizen speakers with respect, and be cordial if firm with rulings (Example: , “Your point is appreciated but has already been made; please move to your next point.” Said in a pleasant manner)
Allow substitution of speakers where hearing is continued; put in written procedures and explain what documentation is needed, if any.
Grant representatives of organizations 5 minutes to speak.
Spell out whether established organizations need to formally designate a representative, whether for each hearing or case, for what length of time, and how that designation is to be presented. (Make it as easy as possible.)
For quasi-judicial hearings spell out how opponents are to choose a representative to present witnesses, cross examination, discovery, etc.
Have the PB’s Executive Secretary (this is the Director of DPZ) present but not be seated at the table with the PB at hearings, and work sessions. The PB is a citizen body and should not rely on DPZ for guidance.
Have the PB’s Counsel (the County Solicitor’s office) present at all hearings and work sessions, as the source of legal advice, rather than the developer’s attorney.

ZONING BOARD

Zoning Counsel

Should give an opening statement.
Written opening statements could be submitted in advance to allow the ZB to rule on limiting issues for testimony.
Have DPZ technical staff available for examination/cross-examination (e.g., to explain reasons for conclusions in the Technical Staff Report).
Alternatively or in addition, allow interrogatories to technical staff.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

Hearings

Post proposed amendments to Design Manuals, and other matters, on the website. Append a rationale in plain English.

GREEN TECHNOLOGY

Have DPZ do public education and provide assistance on green building techniques, conservation in conjunction with the Office of Environmental Sustainability.

LAND USE SUMMIT

2008-03-04T09:09:00.003-05:00

There will be a land use summit at the Miller Library on March 12th 2008 at 7.00pm, it is a chance for the public to give input into land use.

Committee three input last of three posts with input from Tim, Brian, Bill and Susan

2008-02-29T16:14:00.001-05:00

Brian, I want to thank you for recording our ideas from Saturday's
meeting. I suggest the following change and addition.
(Your second item)
Public input maybe ignored by the developer. Developers are only
required to inform the public and adhere to the zoning law. The public
needs to understand the zoning laws and what type of input is relevant.
Land development that requires site specific zoning changes should be
required to (1)post the property, (2)hold a public meeting with a site
specific map and the specific zoning changes requested BEFORE the zoning
board votes on the zoning changes.
-----Original Message-----
From: beengland@comcast.net [mailto:beengland@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 1:42 PM
To: wee@Reese-Carney.com; psscheidt@comcast.net
Subject: Meeting notes
Hi Bill and Susan, Here are my notes, let me know what you think. Brian
');
// -->

2008-02-29T16:11:00.002-05:00

PELU Committee 3 meeting Feb.23rd 2008
Bill Susan and Brian attending at Mad City Café 8.00 am

Public input seems to come too late and at the wrong time this leads to frustration.

When the public gives input it is ignored by the developer (Susan’s comment related to giving testimony at a Preliminary Development Plan meeting)

The processes given to us show public input in various places but misses recent changes that allow public input when the Preliminary Development Plan is submitted.

The public has opportunities to give input on land use before land is developed.
1. Direct input to councilors to change the “General Plan” for their area.(legislative changes)
2. With “text amendments”
3. When “General Plan” comes up for renewal.

Ideas to improve input once developer starts a development.
1. Place signs so they can be read from the street even if this means putting it on edge of hard shoulder.
2. Have a box on the sign with DPZ handout that shows the whole process. The handout should also tell the public the type of input applicable or relevant. This information could also be available from an automated phone system. By dialing an extension the details of the proposed plan could be explained by the developer.
3. Let ALL local village boards and associations know about any development in their area. The developer should be able to get information on these boards and associations from the DPZ.
4. Have a set place in the local newspapers for information on public hearings.
5. A place in the council office building where testimony could be given by using “web cam” technology.
6. Allow testimony by video e-mail.
7. The video screen in the entrance of the office building could be used to explain the type of testimony that would be applicable and relevant to the particular hearing or hearings that night.
8. In cases where the DPZ holds a public hearing in a district, then something comes up or they find out something has been forgotten that affects that district, then those attending the meeting should be informed and another meeting held. (ref. Changes made after Dist. 5 meeting, “tall buildings” being left out of the downtown charrette process).
9. Uniformity in regulations, public input should be the same in each regulation.

2008-02-29T16:11:00.001-05:00

Committee 3:

My thoughts involve a bigger change with a deeper impact…

The PELU taskforce and subcommittee 3 have enumerated many suggestions for improving public engagement in the land use process. Implementing many of these suggestions would enhance public involvement.

A bigger step in the array of possibilities would be to raise the level of public involvement by requiring a much higher level of early dialogue and formal community votes before a proposed zoning changes reach the Planning Board.

The current County review process for development projects is falling short in three ways…
The citizens note a feeling of exclusion and a lack of meaningful involvement in the current process.
There is no mechanism for economic review to insure that the County is getting a fair deal in their partnership with developers.
There is no professional design review to inure that good innovations are promoted and bad design is blocked.
Except for relatively informal preliminary community meetings and technical reviews by the County staff, it is possible for a project to reach the planning board with only a minimum of citizen input and no economic or design review. The resulting citizen frustration is expressed in hours of passionate testimony on items that have little impact or legal relevance while important community issues are ignored. Given the level of community intelligence, we can do better in addressing all of these shortfalls.

The County has an opportunity to accomplish community enhancements like full spectrum housing and sustainable design by harnessing the energy of the marketplace for the common good. To insure that the proposed changes benefit the County we need three types of advisory reviews prior to projects reaching the Planning Board (PB). A DAP (design advisory panel) is nearly ready for legislative action. HCCA is making a bold initiative in convening a session on the economics of development. Setting up an ERP (economic review panel) would be the next logical step.

Citizen input is still fuzzy, inconsistent and often seems to be ignored. This could be remedied by having a known process with meaningful votes taken at the grassroots level. The most significant and first review should happen as a dialogue in a Community Review Process (CRP). This process could be broadly applied. The steps in this process for land development might look like the following…

An advocating developer or land owner, call them the advocate (AD), sees a need that can be addressed by enhancing the use of vacant or previously under developed parcel(s). The AD gains the agreement of the parcel owners who act in unison.
The AD starts the process by filing a short written notice of intention (NOI) accompanied by a simple delineation of the affected land parcels. The AD pays the County a fee (F1) for organizing the initial community meeting (CM1) and to cover the initial County administrative costs.
The appointed County Facilitator (CF) advertises the NOI and posts the included parcels for the CM1 to be held in 21 days after filing at a nearby school or government facility.
The CF runs the CM1 where the AD presents their NOI and the community presents their thoughts on appropriate community goals and objections in response. The object of the CM1 is to establish project goals and set forth the stages of the CRP for the interchanges between the AD and the community that will come. Late in the CM1, the facilitator will seek nominations from those attending for a 7 person community review committee (CRC). If more than 7 candidates are proposed, the makeup of the CRC will be determined by an election of citizens attending the meeting. The County will document thoughts expressed at the CM1 by transcribing any recoded comments and compiling written submissions in a written CM1s -Initial Community Meeting summary.
Within 14 days, the CRC will meet with the CF to organize itself, elect a chairperson, discuss relevant issues, solidify their concerns and identify County resources that need to be tapped. The CRC should review and sign off on the County prepared CM1 summary, adding its own emphasis on important points to consider. This summary will be forwarded to the AD within 21 days of the CM1 and posted on the internet by the County.
Assuming that the AD wants to continue the process, a second fee (F2) will be paid to the County sufficient to cover, County costs and initial impact assessments (IIA) to be conducted by the County personnel and a second round of community meetings (CM2).
The AD will prepare conceptual plans and may post those plans on the County web site prior to the CM2 or may decide that his proposal is best presented directly to the community with a verbal presentation at the CM2. At the CM2, the AD will present conceptual plans that respond to the CM1s and solicit feedback from the County and Community. The CF and CRC will solicit responses and dialogue from those attending.
In some smaller or non controversial projects, the AD’s response and community reaction may warrant a final formal vote of those attending CM2 to ascertain and document the community’s recommendation on the presented concept. The written vote shall be written and have 4 options:
Approved as presented
Rejected as inappropriate
Approved with limitations (listed),
More information necessary (list specific concerns).
After the vote of the vote by the attendees at CM2, the CRC will have a ratifying vote that reflects their own sentiment and follows the same format as the vote of the attendees. The votes will be complied by the county with a summary posted on the County internet site. The votes and accompanying documentation will be sent to the Planning Board –PB for their consideration.
If the project scope warrants or if the AD or County requires it, the project can go through additional community meetings to detail the developer approach and refine the project. CM2, CM3, CM etc. At each meeting the sentiment of both the attendees and the CRC will be measured by a formal vote.
To allow for more thorough study, the CF or CRC may require the developer to pay additional fees (F3) to cover the costs of other analysis (such as transportation – environmental impact, LEED, or other consultant studies).
On a parallel track, if required by law or by the request of the CF or CRC, the project may undergo economic review and design review.
The purpose of the economic review panel (ERP) will be to review the project economics. The project will need to have sufficient design development to allow costing of construction and other economic burdens. These costs will be compared with community needs to determine whether the project is a true partnership between the AD who will make a reasonable profit and the community who will gain amenities or address community needs. The standing ERP committee will receive written and-or oral input from the CRP at the beginning of their sessions and shall stay acquainted with the continuing actions of the CRP. Multiple sessions across the table form the AD may be required to fully comprehend the project economics. After a dialogue with the AD, the ERP will forward their professional view of the project economics.
The purpose of the DAP will be to review aspects of the AD’s proposal to ascertain whether issues related specifically to the technical parts of the design are being adequately addressed by the proposal. Do opportunities exist for design improvement? After a dialogue with the AD, the ERP will forward their professional view of the project economics.
The CRC, ERP and DAP will mutually inform each other and may hold joint sessions prior to their final actions on a project.
Having already engaged the community, when a proposal reaches the PB or ZB (Zoning Board) testimony could be limited to written submissions and dialogue with selected community members who have given evidence of some special knowledge that is relevant.

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail - Thanks,

Tim Sosinski, AIA

RE: PELU Working Committees

2008-02-23T05:55:00.001-05:00

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Erskine;William
FN:wee@Reese-Carney.com
ORG:Reese & Carney, LLP
TITLE:Attorney at Law
TEL;WORK;VOICE:(410) 740-4600
TEL;CELL;VOICE:(443) 864-8844
TEL;WORK;FAX:(410) 730-7729
ADR;WORK:;;10715 Charter Drive, Suite 200;Columbia;Maryland;21044;United States of America
LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:10715 Charter Drive, Suite 200=0D=0AColumbia, Maryland 21044=0D=0AUnited Sta=
tes of America
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:wee@Reese-Carney.com
REV:20080131T115451Z
END:VCARD
Committee 3 is holding its first meeting on Saturday, February 23, 2008 at 8 am. We will meet for coffee at Mad City Café (located at Cedar Lane and Hickory Ridge Road. Meeting is open to all.

Sincerely,

William E. Erskine, Esq.
Reese & Carney, LLP
10715 Charter Drive, Suite 200
Columbia, Maryland 21044
(Office) 410-740-4600
(Facsimile) 410-730-7729
(Cell) 443-864-8844

Re: PELU Working Committees

2008-02-20T17:14:00.001-05:00

If any committee sets a meeting time or place, please email the group.

James

--
James P. Howard, II
jh@jameshoward.us
http://jameshoward.us

FW: PELU Working Committees

2008-02-19T17:16:00.000-05:00

From Theo Wimberly:

Members,

Below you will find a list of initial committee assignments that I complied from last week's meeting. Please review the list and make sure that I am accurate (there was some last minute switches that I may have missed).

Also, there were several members who were unable to attend the last meeting. Therefore, the co-Chairs are requesting that you review the list below, use the suggestions made by Andy Stack in his proposal (see attached), and let me know on which committees you would be interested in serving.

The Committees should begin meeting and choose a facilitator and recorder as soon as you are able. Our next overall task force meeting is scheduled for 2/28/08 at 5pm.

Committee 1- educate the public about land use process and decisions

Bill Lewis, Cathy Hudson, Judy Fisher George, Deb Poquette, and Frank Mirabile

Committee 2 - improve the General Plan, comprehensive zoning and regional issues

Susan Scheidt, Ada Louise Bohorfoush, Julia Mattis, Ron Schimel

Committee 3 - improve the land use process in terms of piecemeal zoning, variances, planning board interaction, subdivision process, and the hearing examiner

Tim Sosinski, Brian England, Susan Scheidt, Bridget Mugane, Julia Mattis, Bill Erskine

Re: rating and validating proposals

2008-02-19T16:54:00.001-05:00

On Feb 19, 2008 1:38 PM, Bridget Mugane <fsatty@comcast.net> wrote:

> I am waiting for our co-chairs to send us an e-mail saying who is on which
> committee, so that we can set committee meeting dates.

I received it a few minutes ago. The following individuals have
volunteered for the following committees:

Committee 1- educate the public about land use process and decisions
Bill Lewis, Cathy Hudson, Judy Fisher George, Deb Poquette, and Frank Mirable

Committee 2 - improve the General Plan, comprehensive zoning and regional issues
Susan Scheidt, Ada Louise Bohorfoush, Julia Mattis, Ron Schimel

Committee 3 - improve the land use process in terms of piecemeal
zoning, variances, planning board interaction, subdivision process,
and the hearing examiner
Tim Sosinski, Brian England, Susan Scheidt, Bridget Mugane, Julia
Mattis, Bill Erskine

Everyone, if you were not at the last Task Force meeting, please
volunteer for one of these committees as you see fit. These
committees will consider proposals that fall within their broad
general mandate to improve public engagement in that part area of land
use planning. Please let Mr. Erskine or myself know if you have
volunteered for a particular committee.

James

--
James P. Howard, II
jh@jameshoward.us
http://jameshoward.us

PELU: rating and validating proposals

2008-02-15T18:58:00.001-05:00

One of the topics I have brought up a couple of times is how we will
analyze proposals. I'd like to solicit some suggestions for those
questions we might ask about proposals and their effects. I don't
think more than a handful are necessary. Please remember, I am coming
at this from a pure policy angle, and my only goal is to see that all
proposals are fairly considered and the final report of the task force
is analytically sound. From that standpoint, I have five potential
criteria which, while vague, will address most concerns:

1. Effectiveness: Will the proposal increase public engagement in
the land use planning process?
2. Cost of implementation: What is the potential cost increase and
who bears that burden (note, this is not who should, but who will
under the proposal)?
3. Political feasibility: Just what it sounds like. An ugly
question, but it still must be asked. Will relevant stakeholders
support this?
4. Technical feasibility: Is this even possible? Is it easy? What
are the implementation challenges?
5. Indirect consequences: Where can the proposal go wrong? Are
there any positive indirect consequences?

The goal here is not to judge proposals directly, but to provoke
well-grounded critical thinking within a consistent framework. From
here, a ratings framework ought to be developed. Proposals can be
rated, say, 1-5, on each measure. Or they can be rated relative to
each other.

I realize this is a touch academic, but I am a grad student in public
policy, so I come at this with what I know. A bit more on this is
available at

http://www.csulb.edu/~msaintg/ppa670/p&sch5.htm

Any thoughts or suggestions?

James

--
James P. Howard, II
jh@jameshoward.us
http://jameshoward.us

New Co-Chair For Task Force Needed

2008-02-12T15:24:00.000-05:00

At the February 13th meeting, the PELU Task Force will select an additional co-chair to replace Mr. Howard Weinstein. You may already know that Mr. Weinstein had to step down from his position as co-chair due to scheduling conflicts. If you are interested in serving as co-chair, please let me know. Candidates for this position should be representative of the "Residents" constituency of the task force.

Comp Lite Rezoning

2008-02-04T15:30:00.000-05:00

PELU may want to ultimately recommend that all rezoning requests require public notice and a hearing. A case in point was the Comp Lite process in 2004 or 2005; this one-time process involved rezoning of over 20 parcels held back from the Comp Rezoning process. Apparently, it bypassed normal public hearing notice and process provisions and led to a firestorm from residents. It included a very large church/social services expansion in a residential neighborhood, and led to a referendum attempt. See the new correspondence below between HCCA, DPZ and two local leaders involved in Comp Lite, including Angie Beltram who started the referendum.

Bridget Mugane

---- Original Message -----
From: Ann Jones
To: howard-citizen@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 12:08 PM
Subject: RE: [howard-citizen] Land Use Task Force Meetings
And to add just a brief addition to Angie's comment - the Church on St Johns lane NEVER came before the Route 40 task force. It seems counter-intuitive to maintain that DPZ modified the planning process to solicit input from a group that was never allowed to hear the proposal.

Ann Jones (I served as a co-chair of the Route 40 task force)

Angie Beltram wrote:
What really happened in CompLite is that the County Council, not only set aside Route 40 issues, but set aside other items throughout the county. The most egregious item was the Church on St. Johns Lane that was NEVER included during the Comprehensive Zoning cycle. That was illegal because the Bill stated that CompLite would RECONSIDER items that had already been considered in Comprehensive. The community was taken by surprise and 65 people attended the public hearing on it. However, after speaking with all of the members of the County Council, they were determined to REZONE the property when all other houses of worship are determined by "conditional use" and requires a quasi-judicial public hearing before the Hearing Examiner and must show plans, etc. So...in effect, the Council took away DUE PROCESS from the residential community. There is only one Church in the county similar to this situation and Rev. Dowell has experienced this power of government. There were other problems with CompLite and with Comprehensive Zoning that has now come to light. Maybe, HCCA would sponsor a meeting to show where land uses were changed when there are no requirement of signs of location, specific notification, etc.-----Original Message-----From: howard-citizen@yahoogroups.com[mailto:howard-citizen@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Kimberley FlowersSent: Friday, February 01, 2008 10:34 AMTo: howard-citizen@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [howard-citizen] Land Use Task Force MeetingsHi Bridget,I apologize for the delayed response to your email message answeringMs. Beltramâ€™s inquiry about Marshaâ€™s presentation. However, it isimportant to clarify your understanding of Marsha's statements about theCompLite process, as communicated at the PELU Taskforce meeting ofJanuary 24th. Marsha made it clear that DPZ only requested deferral ofRoute 40 property owner requests because the Route 40 Taskforce neededto complete its report before the Council acted. She also explainedthat she and DPZ staff have spent considerable time developing ways inwhich the process can be improved for the future.With regard to the "one-time regulation, permitting CompLite", theOffice of Law has requested that Municode make certain that it isdeleted.As always, if you have questions regarding this matter, please feelfree to contact me.Best,Kim FlowersKimberley Amprey FlowersDeputy DirectorDepartment of Planning and ZoningHoward County Government410-313-4340 Direct410-313-3042 Fax

Cancellation of Feb 7th Task Force Meeting

2008-02-04T11:24:00.000-05:00

In recognition of the Chinese New Year, the February 7th, 2008 meeting of the task force has been cancelled. The next meeting will be held on February 13, 2008 (6pm - 8 pm).

Process Problems

2008-02-04T11:16:00.000-05:00

The rules of the BOA and Hearing Examiner are inconsistent with the Zoning Regulations and the Howard County Code with respect to many procedural requirements.
In order to file an appeal of an administrative decision, an appellant is required to make an appointment with DPZ staff to file the appeal. This requirement is not set forth in either the rules, the regulations or the Code, yet when an appellant appears at DPZ to file an appeal, they are given a hard time filing an appeal if they did not previously make an appointment.
The procedures regarding presummission meetings are set forth in many different sections of the rules and regulations, and are inconsistent in many respects.
People wishing to provide testimony at a public hearing should not be required to attend every hearing date. The rules should be revised to allow those members of the public to provide their testimony the first night they attend, if at all possible. Or, they should be able to "sign up" to testify by sending a letter in writing to the Hearing Authority, It is not fair to make the public participants come the first night to sign up and then keep coming back night after night until they are called.
During comprehensive zoning, map amendment requests should be required to be posted and adjacent property owners should be separately notified of the request and of the hearing date for public testimony.
Comprehensive zoning should be conducted more frequently and staggered by geopgaphic area.

Committee Structure

2008-02-04T07:49:00.001-05:00

Task Force Members,

Now that our information sessions are wrapping up, we need to decide how to approach our task.Time is short. I suggest that we consider forming three committees as follows.

Committee 1 would investigate ways to improve information availability and ways to educate the public about land use process and decisions. They could address the issue of community associations.

Committee 2 would investigate ways to improve the General Plan, comprehensive zoning and regional issues.

Committee 3 would investigate ways to improve the land use process in terms of piecemeal zoning, variances, planning board interaction, subdivision process, and the hearing examiner.

Each committee would have 8 members. Each committee would have one representative from each council district. This would help insure a diverse body for each committee. We could give Bill & Howard a list of the committees in ranked order and they could determine the final committee make-up. Each committee would chose a chair and a recorder to keep track of discussions and decisions. Each committee could determine its meeting times. Committee meetings would be open to the entire task force and the public. Each committee would produce a report which summarizes their discussions, recommendations, and rationale for each recommendation.

Thanks.

Andy Stack

2008-02-03T08:22:00.000-05:00

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IN LAND USE

TASK FORCE

January 29, 2008

AGENDA

Approval of Minutes
Issues/Announcements (Chairpersons, Task force membership)

-Homework (Top 10 List)

-Future Direction of Task force

*Need for more informational Meetings (Zoning Counsel, DPZ Ombudsperson, Cindy Hamilton, etc.)

*Small groups vs. Large group

*Future Meeting Times

DPW Q & A Session (Jim Irvin, Director, Department of Public Works)
Planning Board Discussion

Open Floor

Next meeting: February 7, 2008, Ellicott Room, 3 – 5 pm

2008-02-03T08:15:00.000-05:00

SUGGESTIONS FOR THE LAND

DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Bridget Mugane, President

Howard County Citizens Association

October 2, 2007

Have Procedures for Testifying before the Planning Board (PB), as does the Council now; make this available in a brochure at the sign-up table.
The PB website needs to be more easily accessible, especially the agenda which should have appended at the bottom, the rules for testifying.
Enlarge opportunities for the public to be heard by the PB: have established, well-publicized e-mail testimony procedures with the record held open as long as possible.
Continue to ensure the PB treats audience members with respect.
Post plain-English explanations of ZRAs if the DPZ technical staff report is difficult to understand or if there is no staff report; have the explanation attached to the agenda ZRA, as the Council now does.
Ensure the public has maximum standing to testify at all stages of development applications, and that deadlines for presubmission meetings are adhered to.
Publicize how people can become an “interested party” and be kept in the loop.
Publicize the fact that people have the right to contact a specified DPZ official to get more information about a proposal or ZRA; that info could be put under each agenda item as part of the plain-English explanation, with the name, phone number and e-mail address of the contact person.

10.Have the PB Rules of Procedure subject to approval by the County Council, to ensure the PB does not restrict the public’s rights.

11. Have the PB use consistent meeting dates, times and places so the public knows when and where to go.

12. Ensure the Technical Staff Report is posted within the allotted time, and if not, postpone the hearing.

13. Have the PB rule on any motions within a specified time stated in the Procedures.

14. Ensure PB Rules of Procedure allow members of the public to cross-examine any witness in quasi-judicial proceedings.

15. Allow sign-up to testify, by e-mail and again if a hearing extends to

another session.

Allow substitution of speakers.
Allow organizations to register their representatives for one year rather than requiring a signed consent from the organization for every hearing.
Prohibit rental of Howard Bldg. rooms for organizations on hearing nights (example: the Chamber and ZRA 90 providing dinner in the

Tyson Room).

HCCA supports the May 10, 2007 recommendations on the Planning Board Procedures.
Improve orientation/information for the Planning Board (PB) members.
1. Do they have a handbook like the “Planning Commission Duties & Responsibilities” used in Montgomery County?
2. Are they enrolling in the U. Md. two day course in urban planning as suggested by HCCA?
3. Do they have a manual with all necessary regs, criteria for review of applications, etc.
Have the DPZ Ombudsman in the chain of command directly under the County Exec; currently the Ombudsman is also a DPZ Deputy Director who naturally represents the interests of DPZ.
Reduce the role of the DPZ Director in PB work sessions; the Director should not sit at the table, but be present as a resource person.
Have the PB’s counsel present at all hearings and work sessions.
Do not allow the PB to call upon developers’ attorneys in work sessions, for their advice while not calling upon knowledgeable members of the public who are present.
Have DPZ reach out to the community and present explanations of green building techniques, how the permitting process works, affordable housing, etc. The recent Ch. 70 program on the land development process was helpful. These could be on the website if possible in text form, on a permanent basis and in brochures on the sign-up table.
Ensure the public has a full opportunity to be heard by any Design Advisory Panel and to submit e-mail comments; all developers’ materials which the DAP will review, should be made available to the public 15 days in advance, by rule.
DPZ officials should describe what action has been taken, if an organization makes recommendations and this should be posted on the website.

Sosinski Goals

2008-01-29T07:11:00.000-05:00

Tim Sosinski List of 10 Goals – January 29, 2008.

Rather than start with aspersions and angst, we should start with a positive vision. Our land use change process should be:

Comprehensive – “We are dancing with the 10,000 things.” Economics, aesthetics, public facilities, sustainability and 9,996 other aspects need a reasonable level of timely evaluation.

Organized – Starting with early grass roots input, through final approval, the process should be a clear step by step path that is known to all stakeholders.

Inclusive – To quench the community thirst for input, the process should reach out to those who have something to say but are overwhelmed by an un facilitated process.

Democratic – To avoid the competing claims that “my view represents the majority,” from the earliest community input meetings to the final approval by elected officials, decisions should be guided by the clear open votes.

Fair – Those with limited resources should not be shut out by of the process by a lack of access to neutral legal and technical expertise.

Civil – Although emotions often run high when people perceive the smallest threat to their quality of life, the process should emphasize civil discourse and respect for the good intentions of all participants.

Revenue Neutral – The beneficiaries of land use change should pay the full cost of every aspect of the change that benefits them. Fees in advance of services should be paid so that the County can hire everything from facilitators for community input to experts that study transportation, economics, sustainability and ecological issues.

Limited – The process should avoid repetitive testimony, multiple hearings, unending appeals and endless evaluation. In the interest of economics and energy, there should be a level of focus that limits all aspects of the process.

Malleable – We live in an age of continuing advances and need to allow for continuing evolution of how we use our land. Our process needs to allow for continuous evolution in the face of new realities and opportunities.

Future Focused – We need to see beyond the current reality to a future that is far closer to perfection. We need to insure that all that we put in place aims for that higher reality.

The next question is what kind of process will enhance the probability of achieving these benchmarks?

2008-01-28T20:57:00.000-05:00

1. Signs on all driveable sides of a project. Signage should be visible on all potential sides of property so that people driving by can see when driving by.

2. A long time ago, DPZ sent out letters whenever something happened with a project, but this is no longer seems to be the case

3. Public participation should be allowed at any time during a development process – and weight should be given to resident testimony – they know more about traffic issues than traffic engineers.

4. Presubmission public meetings are essential and should be required. A developer presented his project to the community and as residents, we were able to see what was planned, and also give some helpful ideas of what would be important to his future residents and a nice selling point.

5. Better follow up for residents who attend hearings, ie, if a project goes to the Board of Appeals, any resident who testified at the hearings should be given notice of any action on the project they testified at.

6. Website has been improved, but its still difficult navigating thru the years of projects. Could confuse people

7. Let people submit testimony via written or email.

8. I recently stumbled upon what happens when DPZ and development are not logically (parcel by parcel) tracked in the various phases of development. Now we have a miserable driving experience, its frustrating and now there’s nothing that can be done.

9. What happens when the general plan does NOT account for future projects? A developer said any raw land, he sees at potential development, does the County?

10. Would like to see friendlier zoning potential for small businesses, esp. along Rt. 1, Rt 40.

Howard's "List of Ten"

2008-01-28T11:33:00.001-05:00

I see Bill has been posting ideas. For what it's worth, here's my "List of 10." My list should in no way influence anybody else's. The idea at this stage is to be as free-wheeling as you like.

1. Initial public contacts with land use and DPZ need to be more user-friendly!

Need clearer, bigger and less-cluttered notification signs, better notification and public info at all levels, easy-to-use website. Establish a single well-publicized DPZ Help-Line phone for any and all questions, and better train front-desk staff to lead possibly-clueless visitors by the hand to info they need.

2. Replace adversarial “faux-judicial” process with mediation-based process

Adversarial process is a huge turnoff to the public, which correctly perceives it to be unfair (citizens are the only ones who don’t profit from participation). Mediation-based compromise should be the “default,” with a goal of working out differences before a case ever comes before planning or zoning boards – and pre-submission meetings should be led by a DPZ staff facilitator, NOT by a rep of the developer/petitioner.

3. Results of development must be better

When too many developers build lowest-common-denominator development with legal-minimum regard for aesthetics or environmental impact, and citizens see the lousy results, they conclude: “Why bother?” Developers must be held to higher standards if we want more people to get involved.

4. Switch to neutral, unbiased technical (traffic, noise, environmental, etc.) studies

Replace obviously-biased petitioner/developer-commissioned reports with studies generated by DPZ staff (or contractors with NO ties to area developers). Petitioners/developers would pay the bills.

5. No more “short-cut” rezoning by text amendment

This option subverts the process. People who want to build something not allowed by existing zoning should have to apply for piecemeal rezoning with full due process.

6. Zones have to be more specific to eliminate “bait-and-switch” options

No more 45-use zones, no residential uses under commercial zones – all of which undermines credibility and predictability. Developers should have to apply for the zone that allows what they actually intend to build.

7. Create incentives for developers to be more cooperative with community residents

We’re not trying to punish or chase away developers, so give them reasons to do a better job. They’ll change their behavior if it enhances their bottom line.

8. Schedule regular one-on-one DPZ leadership-staff interviews with local reporters

Nobody reads the legal announcements, we don’t have local TV coverage, and there aren’t enough media outlets for press conferences. Giving reporters regular access to DPZ leaders to talk about current and future land-use issues might generate more and bigger news stories in the Sun and Patuxent Publishing weekly papers – where citizens might actually read them!

9. Comprehensive zoning needs to be split up

In an increasingly crowded county, with more re-zonings likely to be contentious, the current “big boiling cauldron” model of comp zoning is too complex and rushed to allow for good decisions. Break it up into 3-5 logical regions at 1-2-year intervals, and maybe try a charrette-style process.

10. Consider creating an independent zoning board

Having legislators also be regulators is a credibility-killing combo. When developers give campaign contributions to council members who then rule on land use as the zoning board, that invites the appearance of impropriety even where there is none.

Constructive Comment #2

2008-01-26T18:36:00.000-05:00

Many task force members have expressed frustration with the difficulty they experience when trying to become informed about the processes and procedures of various zoning matters within the county. To address this issue, I would like to suggest that DPZ endeavor to inform the public about the existence and role of the Howard County Zoning Counsel.

Title 10, Subtitle 16 of the Howard County Code permits the County Council to employ Zoning Counsel (currently, Eileen Powers, Esq.). I have set forth below the relevant sections of the law that describes the role of Zoning Counsel. One of the statutory functions of Zoning Counsel is to inform the public about the process and procedures of various zoning matters. Zoning Counsel cannot provide legal advice or represent a private party, but can inform the public about the procedures involved in zoning matters. The role and function of Zoning Counsel is not well known to the public. As you can see from the statutory excerpt below, Zoning Counsel can even attend certain pre-submission community meetings if directed by the County Council.

My Constructive Comment #2 is for DPZ to inform the public about the existence and role of the Howard County Zoning Counsel.

SUBTITLE 10. ZONING COUNSEL*
__________
*Editor's note: Section 1 of C.B. 77, 1995, repealed former subtitle 10, §§ 16.1000--16.1012, relating to growth management and derived from C.B. 43, 1989; C.B. 98, 1989; C.B. 104, 1989; C.B. 55, 1990; C.B. 61, 1990; C.B. 62, 1990; and C.B. 12, 1991. Subsequently, C.B. 37, 2000 added a new section 16.1000 pertaining to zoning counsel.

Sec. 16.1000. Zoning Counsel.
(a) The County Council may employ a Zoning Counsel on a part-time, contractual basis. The Zoning Counsel shall be a member in good standing of the Bar of the Maryland Court of Appeals and at the time of appointment shall have been actively engaged in the general practice of law for at least 5 years.
(b) A decision to enter into a contract with an individual to perform the duties of Zoning Counsel shall be made by an affirmative vote of at least 3 Council members. A decision to terminate a Zoning Counsel's contract shall be made by an affirmative vote of at least 4 Council members.
(c) The Zoning Counsel shall appear at all zoning board hearings on requests for piecemeal zoning map amendments for the purposes of producing evidence and testimony supporting comprehensive rezoning and facilitating the compilation of a complete record.
(d) In the performance of these duties the Zoning Counsel may:
(1) Present evidence and witnesses;
(2) Examine and cross-examine witnesses;
(3) Present argument; and
(4) Take any other action necessary to perform these duties.
(e) The budget for the Zoning Counsel shall be included in the County Council budget.
(f) The Zoning Counsel may retain expert witnesses and compensate them to the extent that the Council budget includes funds for such compensation.
(g) The Zoning Counsel shall be available:
(1) To any person interested in any zoning matter to advise as to procedures before a county agency or board, provided that when doing so the Zoning Counsel does not engage in the practice of law or render individual legal advice; and
(2) To any group to speak about zoning procedures in the county.
(h) The Zoning Counsel shall attend certain pre-submission community meetings, as necessary. The County Council shall determine whether or not the Zoning Counsel shall attend certain pre-submission community meetings to advise any person or group of procedural matters.
(i) The Zoning Counsel:
(1) Does not represent the county, any government agency or any private party;
(2) Is not a party and does not have a right of appeal in connection with any case before the Board of Appeals;
(3) May not represent any client involving land use in Howard County; and
(4) May not represent any client before the Zoning Board or Board of Appeals for 1 year after leaving the Office of Zoning Counsel.
(i) On or before July 1 of each year, the Zoning Counsel shall submit to the Council and the County Executive a report on the activities of the office in the past year.
(C.B. 37, 2000; C.B. 58, 2005; C.B. 8, 2006, § 1)
Secs. 16.1001--16.1012. Reserved.

Constructive Comment #1

2008-01-26T14:40:00.000-05:00

A recent amendment to the Howard County Code requires that notice of Pre-submission Community Meetings be mailed to any community association that represents the area of the subject property or any adjacent properties. I have found it very difficult and very time consuming (i.e. expensive) to properly identify these community associations.

To my knowledge, DPZ does not maintain a current list of community associations operating within the county. There used to be such a list, but it is not kept current with respect to the name and proper mailing address of the president of the various community associations. Even with a current and accurate list of the community associations, there is not a convenient or accurate way of determining what specific area each association represents.

I would like to see DPZ afford all community associations the opportunity to register with the department in order to facilitate the notification process. Once registered, it should be incumbent on the association to notify DPZ of a change in the name of its president, or a change in the mailing address of its president. It would also be very helpful if the specific areas represented by each association could be determined from a map maintained by DPZ. Alternatively, each community association could submit a list of parcel/lot numbers that they represent. This way we could be sure that all interested community associations respresenting a given area are given timely notice of land use proceedings.

2008-01-25T07:43:00.000-05:00

I'm so frustrated.

I'm a Howard County resident. I have a job, my husband has a job, we both work ridiculous hours to be able to afford a house and continue to live in Howard County. We have a little girl, who took her own sweet time coming into our lives. For over 10 years, I contributed to the Howard County Schools tax base and one day I hope my daughter will benefit from the wonderful Ho. Co. School system. For the most part, I am proud to live in Howard County, and have spent countless hours, weeks, months and years trying to make my neighborhood a better place to live by being active in my HOA, attending hearings, doing research at DPZ, just being a an active part of the community. I want, like everyone else, to live in a nice community. I'm just more outspoken than most about what I want that community to look like.

This task force is supposed to be about public engagement. There is nothing about the meeting times that are at all engaging the the general public of Howard County. Most people work - at a job where output is required. Most general, everday, regular citizens of Howard County work during the day and then have a commute. So why isn't the whole PELU task force and all its lofty goals of public engagement more regular Howard County citizen friendly?

I don't get to bill my hours to a client, I don't get to add this taskforce to my CV, it won't add to my client list and it won't decrease my tax bill and the experience will not add any income to my household. By the time this taskforce is done, I will have spent several hundred dollars for childcare and for what? After attending 4 task force meetings, it is quite clear that the public really isn't welcome to talk about land use. Except for those dog and pony shows before a general plan every 10 years.

The meeting times are not citizen friendly and I feel it is very important for me to speak out publicly and state this.

"Homework" List: Your 10 Pet Peeves

2008-01-25T06:56:00.000-05:00

Hi, Everyone!

Let's see if I can master this new-fangled technology...

At our Jan 24 meeting, we decided to set you all loose on the assignment to compile your personal lists of the "Top Ten Things I Hate" about the current land use processes.

We realize you may have considerably MORE than 10 things you hate and believe need to be changed. But for purposes of shaping our group's direction, and keeping things from getting too unwieldy, please limit your list to what you consider to be your 10 most important (there may be opportunities to bring up other items later).

So what sort of things are we looking for?

Based on the task force's overall assignment to focus on ways to boost public participation in the land use process, your list can include anything you think impedes, limits or discourages public involvement. These can come from anywhere and everywhere in the land use process -- general plan, comprehensive zoning, piecemeal map amendments, text amendments, zoning board, planning board, etc.

You can examine public info and education efforts, the DPZ website, how easy or tough it is to find info at the "front desk" or on the phone. Note any points in or characteristics of the various land use proceedings which make people want to run screaming into the night (I've got a bunch of those :o).

If you think of specific laws and regulations needing to be changed, mention that.

For now, please keep it short! How short? No more than a sentence or two for each of your 10 points. If you can include both what's wrong and how you'd fix it in your 2 sentences, that's great. If not, don't worry about the complexities yet. We'll expand on these things later.

At this point in the process, we're looking for broad strokes which will help us define specific directions for us to explore in the next few months.

Once you have your list, what should you do with it? If you can figure out how to post it to the blog, do that. If you can't, then you can simply e-mail it to everyone on the task force mailing list (which you should have if you saved any of the group e-mails which have gone out already).

Now that we're heading toward things we actually think need to be changed in order to enhance public participation in land use matters, I'm looking forward to seeing what y'all come up with!

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or Bill.

Thanks very much!

Howard W

2008-01-24T07:10:00.000-05:00

PELU TASK FORCE MEETING #3

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Start Time: 4:10 p.m.

End Time: 6:00 p.m.

Members present: Ada Louise Bohorfoush, Brian England, Judy Fisher-George, James Howard, II, Cathy Hudson, William Lewis, Julia Mattis, Frank Mirabile, Bridget Mugane, Debbie Nix, Sang Oh, Deb Poquette, Susan Scheidt, Ronald Schimel, Tim Sosinski, Andrew Stack, Katherine Taylor, Howard Weinstein, Shari Zaret.

Also present: Kimberley Flowers, Caryn Lasser, Stephanie Scott, Theodore Wimberly

Howard Weinstein opened the meeting.

Tom Ballentine, Policy Director for Home Builders introduced himself to the committee.

The Minutes for the first task force meeting (January 9,2008) were approved. The minutes have been posted to the website.

Now available on the website is a link which directs to the blog site. (http://howardcountypelu.blogspot.com/).

Also a questions and comments link has been added to the website. Questions/comments will come to Theodore Wimberly’s email address. Once questions/comments are received by Wimberly, he will forward them to the entire task force. This allows for greater public involvement.

Theodore Wimberly will send an email with Mina Hilsenrath’s (DPZ) power point presentation presented at the last meeting to all task force members. Also, the presentation will be posted on the task force’s website.

Marsha McLaughlin, DPZ Director provided an in-depth presentation about Comprehensive Zoning. She began by passing out two hand outs.

Plan English Version

Summary of County Code requirements on Comprehensive Zoning August 16, 2006

Legalese version

Subtitle 2. Zoning

http://library2.municode.com/default/docview/10016/1/133/135?

After the presentation, Ms. McLaughlin opened the floor to questions and comments.

Task force’s issues and comments

Unreasonable to require people to return to multiple public hearing to testify.
Problem with notification to the public. Concerned testimony comes too late in the process to make an impact on final decisions about rezoning.
It is exhausting following changes/modifications/amendments in bills during the process. Appears to be a moving target.
Notification process does not notify property owners of rezoning of their property.
DPZ should provide a list of holes in the Comp Zoning process, so that a sub-committee can study the issues.
The county appears to reaching a tipping-point with growth. There does not appear to be much balance with adequate environment and adequate facilities.
Various publications should be used to improve communication with the public (ie. Columbia Flier, Howard County Times, Laurel Leader, Gazette, etc).
The articles should be fashioned in such a manner that they cannot be overlooked or placed in a section of a paper people read most often.
Presubmission signs are effective.
Frame information for advertisements so it captures the public’s attention.
Press conferences on specific topics should be given. The Comprehensive Zoning plan is too general and broad to cover.
The web should be better utilized to broadcast notice prior to the process getting underway.
European models of notification should be studied.
Publicity/notice should be placed in places many people frequent, such as the Mall in Columbia.
Does County-wide Comprehensive Zoning make sense? Pros and cons were given.
Individual hearings should be held on text amendments only.

The task force made the following decisions:

There should be another informational meeting.

The next meeting will address the piecemeal zoning and zoning regulation amendments processes.

The members asked for someone from the Planning Board and the Department of Public Works to attend the meeting on the 29th.

Ms. McLaughlin suggested Mark DeLuca as a good candidate.

The next meetings will be held:

Thursday, January 24, 2008

4-6 p.m.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

4-6 p.m.

The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Stephanie Scott

Theodore Wimberly

- 1 -

Public Engagement in Land Use (PELU) Task Force Meeting January 29th, 2008

2008-01-18T08:00:00.001-05:00

Dear Ms. CitaraManis, Mr. Grabowski, Ms. Dombrowski, Mr. Rosenbaum, and Mr. Alexander:

As you may be aware, the County Council recently passed County Resolution CR 132-2007 authorizing the creation of a citizens task force to study and report on the opportunities for public engagement in the county land use process. Howard Weinstein and I have been designated as Co-Chairs of the PELU task force. To date, the task force has met on three occasions. The purpose of these initial meetings has been to educate our members about the existing processes and opportunities for public engagement in the land use process. Mina Hilsenrath has spoken to our group and provided valuable incite into the process of updating the General Plan. Marsha McLaughlin also spoke to our group and explained the processes related to Comprehensive Zoning and Piecemeal Rezoning.

During our most recent task force meeting the members requested Co-Chair Weinstein and I to invite the members of the Planning Board to attend our January 29^th, 2008 meeting. The task force members would be very interested in having an open discussion with members of the Planning Board in order to gain a perspective of how members of the public can effectively participate in the public land use process. Our task force members are interested in having a discussion about the general processes of land use planning and understand that it would not be appropriate for Planning Board members to discuss any particular case that has or may come before the Planning Board. With this in mind, we would like to extend an invitation to each member of the Planning Board to attend our January 29^th meeting. Our meeting will be held in the Ellicott Room and will begin at 4 pm and will end at 6 pm.

If January 29^th is not convenient for you, please let us know and we can make arrangements to reschedule our agenda. Thank you very much. We hope you will be able to participate.

Sincerely,

William E. Erskine, Co-Chair

Howard Weinstein, Co-Chair

For more information about the PELU Task Force please visit the county website. http://www.howardcountymd.gov/CountyCouncil/CC_PELU.htm

2008-01-17T19:27:00.000-05:00

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IN LAND USE

TASK FORCE

January 15, 2008

AGENDA

Introduction of any new Members
Approval of Minutes
Issues/Announcements (Chairpersons, Task force membership)

-Blog site accessible from PELU website

-Approved Minutes on website

DPZ Presentation (Marsha McLaughlin Director)

Future Meetings
Open Floor

Next meeting: January 24, 2008, Ellicott Room, 4 – 6 pm

2008-01-12T06:01:00.000-05:00

PELU TASK FORCE MEETING #2

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Start Time: 4:10 p.m.

End Time: 6:10 p.m.

Members present: Ada Louise Bohorfoush, Patrick Crowe, Brian England, William Erskine, Judy Fisher-George, James Howard, II, Cathy Hudson, William Lewis, Julia Mattis, Frank Mirabile, Bridget Mugane, Debbie Nix, Deb Poquette, Susan Scheidt, Ronald Schimel, Paul Skalny, Tim Sosinski, Andrew Stack, Katherine Taylor, Howard Weinstein, Shari Zaret.

Also present: Kimberley Flowers, Caryn Lasser, Stephanie Scott, Theodore Wimberly

Bill Erskine and Howard Weinstien opened the meeting.

Cathy Ward (representing NAIOP) introduced herself to the committee.

A PELU blog site (http://howardcountypelu.blogspot.com/) was started by Co-Chair Erskine.

Members should get an email invitation for membership in the blog
To participate you will need a google password

Consensus was reached to allow the public to view postings to the blog site, however posting would be limited to taskforce members.

Co-Chair Weinstein provided 2 hand outs to members. attendees

Memo called 3 guiding principles
Copy of several newspaper clips of articles

The minutes from the January 3, 2007 meeting were approved.

A discussion was held regarding the structure of the final report due in May. The question was raised as to whether the group wanted to do a consensus report or include minority opinions.

It was decided by the members that the discussion was premature and that the tone of the report would “crystallize” in time.

It had been mentioned that clear objectives should be used to formally evaluate any proposals to be included in the report.

There was a discussion about the mission and objective DPZ.

Kimberley Flowers, DPZ Deputy Director, offered a concise explanation: guide, control growth, manage, or enhance the quality of life in Howard County. Mrs. Flowers also suggested that the mission and objectives could be found on DPZ’s website.

Mina Hilsenrath, DPZ Division Chief gave a power point presentation on the General Plan process entitled the “Overview of Howard County General Plan 2000 the Plan and the Process”. The presentation reviewed the state and local code/charter requirements, discussed the timing of prior General Plans, and discussed the General Plan Process.

Task force Discussion Points

How is notice given to public of changes in documents?
- It has been suggested that a summary document be included in the front of the document listing proposed changes.
How does the public know that input is being considered or received (better feedback)?
- Maybe an auto reply should be sent
Smaller regional forums are need
The county should work with the local newspapers to format a section for notices
How could the public get informed in the General Plan monitoring process
- Flowers would bring information to the next meeting.

Hilsenrath promised to provide for the task force members an electronic version of the presentation.

She also provided a copy of the May 1999 version of the Howard County General Plan Summary of Process and Requirements. Many publications were made available for viewing to anyone who was interested.

The task force made the following decisions:

The next meetings will be held:

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

4-6 p.m.

Thursday, January 24, 2008

4-6 p.m.

At the next meeting Marsha McLaughlin, DPZ Director has been invited to do a presentation about Comprehensive Zoning.

The meeting on the 24^th will be on the piecemeal/change mistakes and ZRA process.

The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Stephanie Scott

Theodore Wimberly

Kudos to the Department of Planning and Zoning

2008-01-11T06:32:00.000-05:00

If you haven't visited DPZ's website recently, you should. You are in for a real treat. The Department has undertaken what appears to be a near complete overhaul of the site. It is now wonderfully user friendly and intuitive. As always, the site contains a wealth of information and resources on land use and development issues throughout the county, but now you can actually find it. Links to related information are intelligently placed throughout the site making it very user friendly. I was most pleased to see that the Design Manuals which are in PDF format are now fully text searchable. The old PDF versions were merely non-searchable scans of the document which made it nearly impossible to find what you are looking for. Kudos to DPZ!

Howard County Department of Planning & Zoning Mission Statement

2008-01-11T06:17:00.000-05:00

OUR MISSION To create collaborative, innovative plans and implement strategies that effectively address growth and redevelopment challenges. DPZ seeks to enhance Howard County’s high quality of life, prosperity, and stewardship of our natural and cultural resources.

http://www.co.ho.md.us/DPZ/DPZ_HomePage.htm

Obstacle to Public Engagement

2008-01-10T05:48:00.000-05:00

In response to Howard's homework assignment, I would like to offer my early thoughts on obstacles to public participation in land use processes. During Mina Hilzenrath's presentation on the process of updating the General Plan, I was struck by the incredible amount of time that is required in order to participate in the drafting and revision of the General Plan. Public input in this process occurs over the course of nearly a year. I wonder how many members of the public are in a position to make such a significant time committment. If you haven't already, please take some time to review the 2000 General Plan. It will give you an appreciation for the amount of work (and time) required to produce such an encompassing and well researched document. Are there any volunteers to serve on the next General Plan Task Force? I'm sure Mina is already looking for volunteers!

Link to General Plan http://www.co.ho.md.us/DPZ/dpzpublicationsreports.htm#gp2000

2008-01-09T07:17:00.001-05:00

FROM PELU CO-CHAIR HOWARD WEINSTEIN

Hi, gang --

Thanks for "choosing" me as co-chair. Who knew nobody else would be clamoring for the "honor"?? :o)

Let me stress at the outset that I am NOT a planning and zoning expert. (Some of the jargon and mumbo-jumbo still makes my eyes glaze over.) And those of you coming in from the business and development side, please be assured I'm not anti-development. But I believe development can be done better than it's being done now (more on that and how it fits with "Public Engagement in Land Use" at a future date).

I just wanted to tell you a little about me and my perspective, since most of you don't know me at all. I hail from Long Island, NY, once an ideal suburban "Wonder Years" place to grow up. Unfortunately, planning and zoning proved to be alien concepts there and it became an overcrowded, overdeveloped parody of what it once was and could have been. Paradise lost.

I moved to Howard County in 1989. We lived in an apartment in Hickory Ridge/Columbia for two years, and I was really impressed with the Rouse vision of suburbia. I'd hoped that Columbia would serve as a good example for the rest of the county. That proved not to be the case, and post-Rouse, I think Columbia has lost that lovin' feelin', too. We bought our Elkridge townhome in '91. I was president of my HOA for 7 years, and on my HOA board for another 3.

I've been a writer for 35 years (15 books, some TV, radio and film stuff, public information, newsaper and magazine articles and columns, even comic books). I've taught writing classes on and off for 25 years. And I've been a dog trainer for 10 years (a job which opens up all sorts of interesting windows on behavior, both human and canine).

The common thread linking almost everything I've done has been clear communication of information.

15 years ago, when I innocently wandered into the '93 comprehensive zoning extravaganza, I (like most people) knew virtually nothing about planning and zoning.
When I wandered out, I didn't know much more. How things would change!

In 2001, as HOA prez, I innocently wandered into hearings for a piecemeal rezoning case affecting properties near my community. Only when zoning board chairman Vernon Grey uttered the chilling words "Who's representing the protestants?" did I and the presidents of two adjacent HOAs suddenly discover (to our horror) that we had to become instant zoning experts. With no warning, were expected to mount a full rebuttal case against one of the most successful veteran zoning attorneys in the county. (We won, by the way...)

Then came...(drumroll, please)... the Great 2003-ish Comprehensive Rezoning Epic... (is it over yet??!?)

I came out of these experiences astonished at the dysfunctional circus that passed for Howard County's zoning process. It is aggressively irrational, arcane and counterproductive. It not only discourages public participation, it also makes it nearly impossible for good planning and zoning decisions to EVER get made.

Since then, I've been writing about this stuff in local newspaper op-ed columns and letters to the editors. I've pestered members of the last 3 county councils and the past and current executive administrations about reforms which are looooooooooong overdue.

So now this task force comes up. Why would I wanna co-chair this thing (other the previously-mentioned masochistic streak)?

Because "Well, that's how we've always done it" is the world's worst reason to maintain status quo.
Hardly anybody likes the way we now do planning and zoning, so it's insane to keep doing it the same way.

From the notification signs all the way to what finally gets built, virtually every aspect of our existing planning and zoning process impinges on "Public Engagement in Land Use." If we can make that linkage, then it's fair game. If that means recommending changes in actual zoning laws, rules and regulations, then that's what we're gonna do. So open up your imaginations, dredge up your frustration and bring it all to the table.

We certainly won't all agree on everything we discuss. And there's no such thing as a perfect P & Z process. But the present one stinks, and there are so many ways we can make it better. So don't limit yourselves to baby steps and incremental improvements. I want this task force to come up with reform ideas that revolutionize the way we do P & Z here..."To boldly go where NO task force has gone before!"

Thanks, everybody! Let's do some good work and have some fun doing it.

Best regards,
Howard Weinstein

P.S. I thought my phone number was on the roster, but it wasn't. It's 410-796-5349 (please don't call after 9 PM...thanks)

2008-01-09T07:06:00.000-05:00

DRAFT

PELU TASK FORCE MEETING #1

Thursday, January 3, 2008

Start time: 4:10 p.m.

End time: 6:05 p.m.

Members present: Ada Louise Bohorfoush, Patrick Crowe, Brian England, William Erskine, Judy Fisher-George, James Howard, II, Cathy Hudson, William Lewis, Julia Mattis, Frank Mirabile, Bridget Mugane, Debbie Nix, Sang Oh, Deb Poquette, Susan Scheidt, Ronald Schimel, Paul Skalny, Tim Sosinkski, Andrew Stack, Katherine Taylor, Howard Weinstein, Shari Zaret,

Also present: Kimberley Flowers, Caryn Lasser, Lisa Nissley, Stephanie Scott, Theodore Wimberly

Welcolme was given for Mary Kay Sigaty and Jennifer Terrasa by Caryn Lasser and Lisa Nissley.

Introductions were made by all present. William Erskine and Howard Weinstein volunteered to co-chair the committee.

The meeting then opened up into a discussion on the role/functions of the task force. Below is a summary of the suggestions/concerns offered by the task force membership:

Task force should breakdown into smaller subcommittees.

Task force should be provided a basic orientation/education of the land use processes and supplied simplified information of land use procedures.

People who have experience working with the system should come to task force meetings to provide first hand input.

Task forces should set up a forum where public can give input; in public facilities around the county

Members questioned the general direction of task force.

Future task force subcommittees should break into regions groups.

Concern for the amount of time scheduling and doing town hall type small meetings. Task force members have enough information they can share.

Task force members should develop a list of 5-10 issues to be discussed by the task force.

The task force should create a mailing list/blog for members to share information.

Several members volunteered to work in the drafting of the final report.

Some members believe public input is often welcomed, however, there is seldom any reaction to it.

DPZ should do a presentation to explain the process thoroughly.

The public should be provided 15 minutes “open mike” period for input at each meeting

The task force’s emphasis should be on pubic engagement/contact not changing the DPZ process.

The task force made the following decisions:

The next two meetings will be held:

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

4-6 p.m.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

4-6 p.m.

The next meeting will concentrate on educating the members about the DPZ Process

Kimberley Flowers (KF) will do a presentation.

Members will have a chance to respond/follow up on handouts from Kimberley Flowers about DPZ

Members will provide 5-10 bullet points about key issues they believe should be addressed

A GTV DVD entitled, “The Land Plan” was played for the attendees.

The meeting was adjourned at 6:05 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Stephanie Scott

Theodore Wimberly

Task Force Calendar of Events

2008-01-04T07:30:00.000-05:00

Thursday, January 3, 2008 (4 pm - 6 pm) - Initial organizational meeting of the PELU task force

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 (4 pm - 6 pm) - Task force meeting & DPZ presentation on current opportunities for public engagement in land use process (part 1).

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 (4 pm - 6 pm) - Task force meeting & DPZ presentation on current opportunities for public engagement in land use process (part 2).

Thursday, January 24, 2008 (4 pm - 6 pm) - Task force meeting.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 (4 pm - 6 pm) - Task force meeting.

All task force meetings are open to the public.