Tuesday, March 25, 2008

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

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Committee 3 meeting notes update

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.

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

LAND USE SUMMIT

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.

Friday, February 29, 2008

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

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
');
// -->
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.
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

Saturday, February 23, 2008

RE: PELU Working Committees

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