New Co-Chair For Task Force Needed

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

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. Beltram’s inquiry about Marsha’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

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. The procedures regarding presummission meetings are set forth in many different sections of the rules and regulations, and are inconsistent in many respects.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Comprehensive zoning should be conducted more frequently and staggered by geopgaphic area.

Committee Structure

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

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

SUGGESTIONS FOR THE LAND

DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Bridget Mugane, President

Howard County Citizens Association

October 2, 2007

1. 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.

2. The PB website needs to be more easily accessible, especially the agenda which should have appended at the bottom, the rules for testifying.

3. 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.

4. Continue to ensure the PB treats audience members with respect.

5. 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.

6. Ensure the public has maximum standing to testify at all stages of development applications, and that deadlines for presubmission meetings are adhered to.

7. Publicize how people can become an “interested party” and be kept in the loop.

8. 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.

16. Allow substitution of speakers.

17. Allow organizations to register their representatives for one year rather than requiring a signed consent from the organization for every hearing.

18. Prohibit rental of Howard Bldg. rooms for organizations on hearing nights (example: the Chamber and ZRA 90 providing dinner in the

Tyson Room).

16. HCCA supports the May 10, 2007 recommendations on the Planning Board Procedures.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. Have the PB’s counsel present at all hearings and work sessions.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. DPZ officials should describe what action has been taken, if an organization makes recommendations and this should be posted on the website.