The best laid plans...

Citizens of Anne Arundel County and the City of Annapolis have an opportunity right now to help shape development and land use for the next 10 years.

Both the County and City are in the process of updating their long-range development plans. Once finalized, these two documents will serve as blueprints for everything from zoning and development to housing and economic development to transportation and environmental protection. Several key dates and opportunities for input are coming up soon.

Anne Arundel County's General Development Plan (GDP)

On January 20th, the County will release the draft GDP on its website. The County will then hold four public forums to present the plan and receive public input. All forums will run from 6 to 9 p.m. at the following locations:

• January 26th at Annapolis High School
• January 28th at Old Mill High School
• February 3rd at Southern High School
• February 5th at Meade High School

The County will also accept input in writing or by email through February 16th.

After this public outreach effort concludes, the County will revise the draft and present a final proposed plan to the County Council shortly thereafter. Once the County Council receives it, the Council will hold public hearings of its own. I and likely other council members intend to hold special public forums in our districts to highlight local changes and to receive constituent input.

Community forum this Sunday: Two local organizations -- The League of Women Voters of Anne Arundel County and Growth Action Network -- are sponsoring a special public program on the GDP. It is scheduled for this Sunday afternoon, January 11th at 1:30 p.m. at Woods Memorial Church in Severna Park. LWV member and Growth Action Network chair Ann Fligsten will chair a panel discussion that will include Al Johnston, longtime civic activist and member of the County's Special Advisory Committee for the GDP. For more information contact Ann.

City of Annapolis' Comprehensive Plan

The City has already posted the public draft of its Comprehensive Plan online. The City's Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive input on Thursday, February 5th at 7 p.m. at City Hall, 160 Duke of Gloucester Street.

The City will also accept comments in writing or by email through February 9th.

I encourage all citizens to make the most of this opportunity to be heard and to shape the future of our city and county.

Impact Fees, Take Two

The County Council is reviewing a new proposal that will significantly increase impact fees for new development. If adopted, the bill will significantly boost the County's ability to keep pace with new roads, schools and public safety demands created by new development.

[What is an impact fee? As I wrote previously: "An impact fee is a one-time fee levied on new development. The idea behind impact fees is simple: new development should pay for the capital improvements it requires. Our county revenue structure is barely enough to maintain our existing infrastructure; it would be impossible to also fund the new schools and road improvements required by new development without additional funding."]

Currently our impact fees are among the lowest in the state. Developers acknowledge that our fees are set so low that they recoup only a fraction of the true cost. Why does this matter? It matters because for every new shopping center or subdivision that is built, we are digging a deeper and deeper fiscal hole. Instead of making progress and reducing our roads and schools maintenance backlog, we are just making it worse.

Anne Arundel County already faces a $1.5 billion school maintenance backlog; our road maintenance backlog is similar. We literally cannot afford to continue in this way.

Impact fees vs. new taxes

If someone builds a house next door to me and connects it to public water, my new neighbor is required to pay for the connection costs, not me. That's the way it should be. Similarly, if a large new subdivision requires additional road capacity, more classroom space and an additional paramedic unit, should the developer pay for those enhancements or should existing taxpayers? In my view that's a rhetorical question, because clearly the new development should pay for the increased infrastructure it requires. In reality, though, this very question is being debated because many in the development community are strenuously opposing the proposed fee increases.

Developers argue that now is not the time to be raising fees. Many development firms are small, locally owned and operated businesses. Our economy's recessionary-like symptoms are affecting us all, and developers are no exception. But the reality is, if development fails to pay its own way, either the rest of us taxpayers make up the difference or we all experience diminished government services. Given our county's property tax revenue cap, the latter is more likely. As a result, without a large increase in impact fees we will experience more congestion on our roads, more overcrowded classrooms, and a more severely strained public safety system.

Legislative history

Earlier this year County Executive John R. Leopold introduced the first bill to increase impact fees. The Council appointed a blue-ribbon committee of citizens to review the numbers, and the Executive withdrew the bill pending the review.

Now that the committee has completed its review, the County Executive along with Councilmembers Cathy Vitale, Ed Reilly and I have introduced a new bill based largely on the committee's findings. Bill No. 71-08 will set impact fees at 80% of the actual projected cost. While I would prefer a higher percentage, 80% is still a significant increase and reflects the fact that certain parts of the county do have school and road capacity. The 80% figure also seems to be the highest rate that has a chance at getting a majority on the Council to support it.

The committee proposed a five-year phase-in of the new fees. Our bill sets forth a more aggressive timeline, fully phasing in the new fee increases on July 1, 2010. After that time, fees will increase annually to keep pace with the Construction Cost Index (CCI).

Amendments

This past Tuesday the Council passed several amendments to the bill. One of the amendments deferred the bulk (60%) of the phase-in until 2010. Another waived the fee increase for any projects that had received site development or sketch plan approval by September 2nd. The third substantive amendment eliminated an ill-conceived provision that would have charged impact fees on additions to or rebuilds of existing houses.

This last amendment should do more than help out existing homeowners who want to build an addition. My hope is that it will also encourage smart growth and revitalization of older, blighted neighborhoods. By exempting rebuilds of existing houses, it may provide a financial incentive for a developer to redevelop a block of vacant houses in an existing neighborhood rather than buying up a farm and building new houses in the suburbs.

Next steps

The amended bill is scheduled for another public hearing on Monday, September 15th. If no further amendments are added, the bill can be voted on that night.

Crownsville Hospital property update

Within the next few months, the State of Maryland will make a decision about who will redevelop the former Crownsville Hospital Center property and how. This decision will have wide-ranging impacts on our region's overall quality of life, traffic congestion, environmental health, tax base and social services safety net.

The 559-acre property (map) is located in the heart of Anne Arundel County. Its rolling hills and woodlands contribute to the area's pastoral character and also form the headwaters of the South River several miles away. Its massive size means that any redevelopment of it will significantly impact the surrounding area for generations to come. It is imperative that this decision be carefully considered.

Background

Crownsville Hospital Center was established in 1910 as the Hospital for the Negro Insane of Maryland. It was desegregated in 1949. For the next 55 years it was one of the State's regional inpatient facilities, serving mentally ill patients primarily from Anne Arundel County and Southern Maryland. The Hospital was built with on-site utilities such as a wastewater treatment plant, water plant and electrical substation. Some of these outdated, asbestos-ridden systems have since become a costly obstacle to the property's redevelopment.

The Hospital has been closed since June of 2004. Since that time the campus has been largely a ghost town (see pictures at forgottenphotography.com.) A handful of non-profit organizations such as the Maryland Food Bank, Hope House, Second Genesis and the Ridge School have been occupying some of its buildings, but many of the 66 buildings have remained vacant. During the administration of former County Executive Janet S. Owens, the County had expressed interest in acquiring the site but was put off by the estimated $15 to $25 million environmental clean-up cost.

Over the past several months a group of State agencies reviewed the property and deemed it to be in the State's interest to dispose of it. In May the Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) issued a Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) to sell or lease the property for redevelopment. According to a letter from MDP's Deputy Secretary Matthew Power, the State adopted a set of guiding principles for the property which included:

"... restricting uses to those permitted under current zoning, retention of open space, and adaptive reuse of buildings."

These guiding principles were adopted in addition to three others previously established by the State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH):

"(1) to maintain existing tenant-based behavioral health capacity, and preferably increase, privately operated outpatient and inpatient behavioral health service capacity on site; (2) to maximize return on the value of the property and deposit proceeds from disposition of the property in the Community Trust Fund to benefit individuals with mental illness; and (3) to reduce, and eventually eliminate, the annual costs paid by DHMH for the operation of the on-site water and sewer systems and other costs."

Local priorities

My preference would have been for Anne Arundel County to acquire the property and control its own destiny. Because that is not going to happen, Councilman Jamie Benoit and I sent a letter last week to Deputy Secretary Power to request the State's support for the following five local priorities:

• Compliance with local zoning;
• Minimal impact on vehicle traffic;
• Preservation of undeveloped land;
• Maintenance on non-profits on site; and
• Community participation.

Our hope is that by going on record with our priorities for the property, we can guide the redevelopment in a positive way despite the fact that the decision will be largely outside of the County's control.

Next steps

Right now any discussion about the future of the property is just speculation. The range of options will become clearer next week after the June 30 deadline to respond to the REOI. Once the responses come in, we will begin to be able to weigh the pros and cons of the different development proposals.

Thus far I have been encouraged by the State's proactive communication with local officials, and am cautiously optimistic that this collaborative spirit will continue. However, the State is facing a significant budget crunch. It remains to be seen whether the State will be able to resist the temptation to view the property first and foremost as a cash cow.

As the process moves forward it is important for citizens to get involved and advise their State representatives of their concerns and priorities. I will continue to closely monitor the process and work with State and community stakeholders to achieve a positive outcome not only for the State, but for our County and its communities as well.

Related articles

• The Sun: Hospital site up for development (June 22, 2008)
• The Capital: Crownsville Hospital property in limbo (June 24, 2008)
  
• The Capital: Editorial: Nonprofits shouldn't be ousted from old hospital site (June 25, 2008)
  

Impact Fees Update

Anne Arundel County is in the midst of a rare re-examination of its impact fee rates. The outcome of this process will have a big impact both on our county’s quality of life and its bottom line.

What are impact fees?

An impact fee is a one-time fee levied on new development. The idea behind impact fees is simple: new development should pay for the capital improvements it requires. Our county revenue structure is barely enough to maintain our existing infrastructure; it would be impossible to also fund the new schools and road improvements required by new development without additional funding.

When a new housing development is built, the new occupants create additional demand for county facilities such as roads and schools. Someone needs to pay for it. If the builder does not pay the full cost, then the balance is either subsidized by the taxpayers or the necessary improvements are unmet, leading to increased congestion and inadequate facilities. So it is important to make sure that our impact fee schedule accurately captures the cost of new development.

Our county has three impact fees, for roads, schools and public safety. Development within the City of Annapolis pays the county's impact fee for schools, but not for roads or public safety because the City provides those services separately.

History

Anne Arundel County has conducted a thorough review of its impact fees only twice. It first enacted impact fees for roads and schools in 1987. Thirteen years later, the county revised its fees in 2000 when it also created the impact fee for public safety. Both times the county first appointed an independent committee to review the fee schedule before submitting the legislation.

Last year County Executive John Leopold started the process to update our impact fee schedule. The county hired a consultant, Dr. James Nicholas, to analyze the fee schedule and recommend changes. Once Dr. Nicholas completed his preliminary review, the Executive presented it to the Executive’s Planning Advisory Board, which approved it in one sitting. The Executive then submitted Bill No. 06-08 to the County Council in January to implement the new impact fees.

After receiving Dr. Nicholas’ report, the County Council tasked its independent auditor with reviewing it. The auditor found several errors both in the methodology and in the raw data used as the basis for the analysis. Although all parties agreed on the need to revise the impact fee schedule, I and others had serious reservations about the proposal submitted by the County Executive.

Current status

On March 3rd the County Council unanimously adopted Resolution No. 13-08 to appoint an Impact Fee Advisory Committee. The Committee's role is to provide the critical, third-party review that should have taken place prior to the legislation's introduction.

The Committee is chaired by former County Executive and State Senator Bobby Neall. Its membership is balanced to reflect different stakeholders’ concerns. The members are listed below.

• Robert Neall, Chairman, former County Executive
• Robert Burdon, President and CEO, Annapolis and Anne Arundel County Chamber of Commerce
• Al Johnston, Citizen Representative
• Dwight Taylor, President of Development, Corporate Office Properties Trust
• Dan Ellis, Executive Director, Arundel Habitat for Humanity
• Jerry Walker, Vice President, DCA Imaging Systems
• Ann Fligsten, Esquire
• Robert Gallagher, Rhode/West Rivers Riverkeeper
• Sam Georgiou, Citizen Representative

Next steps

The Committee is charged with presenting a final report to the County Council next month. At that time the Council will hold additional public hearings to help us further refine the numbers. By this Summer I expect that the Council will have adopted a new impact fee schedule, one that accurately reflects the current impact of new development.

On the Web:

• The Examiner: Anne Arundel is looking to other counties for a little help on increasing its impact fees (March 14, 2008)
  

Legislative Update: Water and Sewer Master Plan

This Monday night, the County Council will consider changes to the County's Water and Sewer Master Plan. The Plan was last adopted in 2003. By law, the County is required to update it every few years.

Service Categories

The Plan contains maps that establish service categories for sewer and water such as Planned Service, Future Service, and No Public Service. These service categories are a planning tool to help the County project its capacity needs. Importantly for property owners, service categories determine how easy or difficult it is to extend public water or sewer to a neighborhood.

For example, it is simpler and quicker for a property owner to get public sewer service if the property is designated as Planned Service than if it is designated as Future Service. Both categories require property owners to submit a petition that goes through an administrative review process. The difference between the two is that Planned Service only requires administrative approval, but Future Service requires County Council approval as well.

Health Concerns vs. Development Concerns

The debate about public sewer is often controversial because it is not just about existing development but future development too. Often a property owner is unable to build on a vacant lot because the ground cannot support a septic system. Public sewer eliminates the need for septic systems and can make previously unbuildable lots buildable.

Proponents of extending public sewer argue that it is more sanitary than a septic system. It eliminates the maintenance headaches that sometimes go along with having private septic. Especially in low-lying waterfront neighborhoods, older failing septic systems can pose a health and environmental hazard. Proponents argue that public sewer should be evaluated based on existing health and development needs, and that zoning -- not the sewer and water plan -- should be what guides future development.

Opponents of public sewer argue that the lack of public sewer is in fact a back-door way to control development. Many communities do not trust our County government to uphold established zoning restrictions. For example, earlier this year the County Council upzoned several properties along Bestgate Road despite strong opposition from neighboring communities. Bringing public sewer to low-density neighborhoods will therefore make more intensive development inevitable.

Draft 2007 Master Plan

The County Executive has introduced Bill No. 84-07 to adopt the new 2007 Water and Sewer Master Plan. The Office of Planning and Zoning has posted the accompanying water and sewer maps on its website. I encourage property owners and neighborhood leaders to closely examine the maps to determine what changes, if any, may be proposed for their area.

The maps are not the easiest thing to decipher. To help people better understand the proposed changes, Planning and Zoning has prepared a summary of changes that affect Council District Six.

Monday's Hearing

Monday's County Council meeting begins at 7 p.m. Citizens can sign up to testify starting at 6:30 p.m. The agenda includes both a public hearing on the bill as well as legislative action. Monday is the last opportunity for council members to amend the bill, so it is critical that people not wait until Tuesday to contact their representative. For more information visit the County Council's webpage.

Related Articles

• The Capital: County's water, sewer plan may remake neighborhoods (November 24, 2007)
  

Legislative Update: Zoning and More Zoning

Two zoning bills are scheduled for a public hearing and vote this coming Monday, October 1st. These bills affect a variety of zoning and development issues such as traffic, road capacity, and infill development of small lots.

• The "Peninsula Roads Bill" (Bill No. 61-07), introduced by County Executive John Leopold, will apply tougher development standards to smaller subdivisions on peninsulas. Currently, county code applies Adequate Public Facilities (APF) traffic standards to subdivisions of five or more lots. Smaller subdivisions are not addressed. [APF standards help ensure that before new development goes forward, the roads, water and sewer, and other facilities are in place to handle it].
  
  Individually, a major subdivision has a greater traffic impact than a small subdivision. But collectively, several small subdivisions can also have a major impact. Bill 61-07 will allow the Planning Officer to impose APF requirements on smaller subdivisions when these smaller subdivisions will have a combined, measurable impact.
  
  This bill applies to five designated peninsulas in the County with only one way in and one way out. The Annapolis Neck Peninsula east of Bay Ridge Road is one such peninsula. I view this bill as an appropriate tool to address traffic problems on peninsulas and plan to support it.
  
  
• Bill 69-07, also introduced by the County Executive, is billed as a "housekeeping" bill to clean up several technical parts of the zoning code. While some of the changes are minor, others are more substantive. I plan to introduce amendments to strike some of the following changes.
  
  
• Assisted Living Facilities: Assisted living facilities are currently allowed as a Special Exception use in R-1 and R-2 zones if built on a minimum of 10 acres. Bill 69-07 proposes to reduce the minimum to five acres. In a strictly academic sense the proposed change is reasonable; the code already allows nursing homes on five acres in R1 and R2, so why not assisted living facilities too?
  
  The reason I oppose this change is timing. Practically speaking, it would affect only one project currently in the pipeline. The Shelter Development Group, a reputable company out of Baltimore, is proposing a 160-unit Brightview Assisted Living Facility on seven acres on Generals Highway just north of the Annapolis Mall.
  
  Under the current zoning the project would require a variance hearing. The variance hearing would provide the community with an important safeguard to protect that site from overdevelopment. However, if the zoning change goes through, no variance would be needed.
  
  Shelter Development is engaged in ongoing discussions with the community but there is no consensus to support the project at this time. It would be premature for me to support this zoning change so I am offering an amendment to strike it from the bill.
  
  
• Infill Development: Another provision in the bill would open the door to more infill development of small, substandard lots.
  
  Many older communities such as Herald Harbor were subdivided before the county adopted our modern zoning code. The lots in these communities are often small, narrow and irregular. Currently the zoning code requires a variance to build a new house on one of these substandard lots. Bill 69-07 would eliminate the variance requirement for substandard lots that met certain criteria.
  
  In my view, as with the assisted living provision discussed above, the variance hearing serves as a safeguard to prevent overbuilding on these smaller lots. I am introducing an amendment to strike this provision and leave the code unchanged.
  
  
• Waterfront lots: Another seemingly minor provision in this bill would change the definition of a waterfront lot in certain communities. The reason this is important is because stricter development standards apply to waterfront lots than to other lots. For example, a builder of a home on a waterfront lot must take extra steps to avoid blocking the neighbors' light, air and view. A waterfront lot also requires a fence permit for any sized fence, whereas most regular lots only require permits for fences six feet or higher.
  
  There is a good reason why stronger development standards apply to waterfront lots. Even though the lot itself is private property, the water view is a public benefit for the whole neighborhood. That's why the zoning code is set up to prevent a walling-off of the waterfront.
  
  What does this have to do with the bill? Currently, the zoning code's definition of a waterfront lot includes a lot that does not directly abut the water but is on a community-owned road that runs along community-owned waterfront. This definition is appropriate because construction on these lots impacts the neighbors' view just as much as construction on lots that abut the water. Annapolis Roads, Herald Harbor and Oyster Harbor are three examples of these communities with community-owned roads that run along community-owned waterfront property.
  
  The bill proposes to change the definition of waterfront lot to exclude these lots. Changing the definition in this way, although seemingly minor, would enable more walling-off of the waterfront by allowing more intensive development of these lots along the water. I am sponsoring an amendment to keep the definition of a waterfront lot unchanged.
  

The County Council hearing starts at 7 p.m. Citizens can sign-in at 6:30 to testify. It looks like it will be a lengthy meeting because the agenda includes not only these bills but the bill to ban fly-ash dumping, discussion of the school board budget and other items.

Legislative Update: community meetings, police employment and electronic signs

Three bills that I am co-sponsoring are scheduled for a public hearing and vote this coming Tuesday night. These bills affect community meetings, secondary police employment, and electronic signs. (Note that because of the Labor Day holiday, the Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday night instead of Monday.)

Community Meetings Bill

County law requires a developer to hold a community meeting before submitting a new subdivision or development plan. The meeting is "for the purpose of allowing the developer to present information regarding the development, and allowing the community to ask questions or provide comments (Sec. 17.2.107)."

The law requires the meeting to be held at an ADA-accessible facility "reasonably close" to the development site. In practice, this usually works out as intended. On a handful of occasions, however, the developer has creatively interpreted the term "reasonably." Earlier this year, for example, a developer held a meeting for a proposed development in Crownsville at the Eastport/Annapolis Neck Library, a good 30 minutes and two zip codes away.

To correct this loophole, Bill No. 62-07 requires that developers hold the community meeting "within five miles of the development site." On that rare occasion when the five-mile limit is impractical, for instance in rural South County, the five-mile limit may be waived but only by the Planning and Officer.

County Executive John Leopold and Council Members Jamie Benoit, Cathy Vitale and I are co-sponsoring this bill.

Police Secondary Employment Bill

Anne Arundel County police officers have long held secondary jobs at restaurants and other businesses around the county. This secondary employment provides a quadruple benefit: first, it enhances public safety by putting more uniformed officers out into the community; second, it accomplishes this without spending taxpayer dollars; third, it provides business owners with well-trained personnel to enhance security and safety at their establishments; and fourth, it provides a reasonable way for police officers to earn additional income.

Several years ago, the County's Ethics Commission opined that it was a conflict of interest for police officers to work secondary employment at establishments that sold alcohol. The reasoning was that the officer might feel compromised if he or she observed an alcohol violation, because the establishment, not the government, was paying for him or her to be there. In other words, according to the opinion, an officer could be reluctant to make an arrest or take an action that might disrupt the establishment's revenues.

When the opinion came out, the police chief at that time, Tom Shanahan, disregarded it. He continued to allow police officers to work secondary employment at restaurants that served alcohol. An Ethics Commission opinion is strictly advisory and Chief Shanahan was within his authority to disregard it.

Earlier this year, the new police chief, James Teare, made a decision to prohibit secondary employment at establishments that served alcohol. Even though such employment was not prohibited by law, Chief Teare wanted to be consistent with the Ethics Commission's opinion.

As I indicated above, secondary police employment provides several benefits. I believe these benefits are greatest at an establishment that serves alcohol. When the bartender yells "last call" is when the presence of a uniformed officer is most helpful. The officer can provide a deterrent effect for unruly patrons as they head to their cars, and also provide an added level of security for the remaining employees who are closing up after the customers leave.

Bill No. 59-07 will amend the law to clarify that police officers can indeed work secondary employment at establishments that serve alcohol and also at bingo parlors. It draws the line at bars, and only permits secondary employment at restaurants whose primary business is not alcohol. I support expanding this provision in the future to allow secondary employment at bars as well, but the police union is requesting only the current language. For now the police union just wants the law to affirm what had been the practice for many years.

It bears mention that the nature of secondary employment has been misconstrued in some of the press coverage. Contrary to what was reported in one article, officers may not work as bouncers or assist in the operation of the business in any way. Secondary employment allows an officer to be paid to remain onsite, provide a calming presence, and respond in a police capacity when necessary.

County Executive Leopold and Council Members Ed Middlebrooks, Ron Dillon, Cathy Vitale and I are co-sponsoring this bill.

Electronic Sign Bill

You have probably noticed more and more electronic signboards with moving images popping up around the county. As these signs become more affordable, we can expect to see more businesses erecting them.

I am concerned about this trend for two reasons. The first is public safety. Our eyes are naturally drawn to moving images, especially bright, electronic red dots. The whole purpose of these signs is to attract attention. Every driver is responsible for driving safely, but the fact is that we have too many distractions while driving already. Even if I am driving responsibly, do I want the driver next to me to be reading a moving sign instead of paying attention to the road?

The second reason is aesthetics. I admit that this is getting into a personally subjective gray area. Glitzy signs can be attractive and they do have their place, but not in Anne Arundel County. Our county still has a unique, attractive character and we should be doing what we can to preserve what makes us special. My concern is that ten years from now, these signs will be everywhere and we'll look more like the Las Vegas Strip than the county we know and love today.

Although the Chamber of Commerce opposes this ban, I believe that in the long run it will be good for our local economy. Strong design guidelines establish a sense of place and help attract new businesses to an area. Ed McMahon of the Urban Land Institute (not the one from The Tonight Show) has written extensively on this issue. (Lessons in Community Development Learned from Traveling is a brief piece he wrote in 2005 about development in San Antonio.)

Bill No. 63-07 establishes modest limitations on how electronic signs display their messages. The bill prohibits "... moving picture or video images, moving electronic images, (and) moving, flashing, or scrolling text messages..." The bill does not ban electronic signs, nor does it require businesses to take down any electronic signs they already have. Instead, it simply requires that an image remain static for at least five seconds.

Councilmember Jamie Benoit and I are co-sponsoring this bill.

To Testify

The Council Meeting begins at 7 p.m. at the Arundel Center. Anyone wishing to speak may sign up beginning at 6:30 p.m. For more information visit the County Council's webpage.

Annapolis Neck Zoning recap

Last week the County Council adopted the Annapolis Neck comprehensive zoning bill. The final version that passed is a mixed bag.

The adoption finally brings closure to a 10-year planning process that started with the 1997 General Development Plan. On the plus side, the bill limits future development on hundreds of acres of environmentally sensitive land south of Forest Drive, as recommended by the 2003 Annapolis Neck Small Area Plan.

In the minus column, some amendments that passed open the door to more intense development by upzoning several parcels along the Bestgate Road corridor. Most disheartening is that the bill fails to honor the agreement reached by community leaders and owners of the Samaras property on Bay Ridge Road. I'll discuss this agreement more towards the end.

What's in the adopted bill

• Downzoning:
  
  The adopted bill downzones all five areas identified in the March 11 bulletin ("Annapolis Neck Zoning, at last"):
  
  
• 600 acres on peninsulas south of Forest Drive. The bill "grandfathers" any permit applications already in progress so they can proceed under the existing rules;
• Two areas that total 18 acres at the intersection of Route 2 and MD 665; and
  
• All of Quiet Waters Park and a 3.5 acre addition to Peninsula Park;
  
  I voted for these changes, all of which were recommended by the 2003 Small Area Plan.

• Bestgate Road corridor:
  
  The adopted bill creates more intensive zoning on four separate parcels from one end of Bestgate Road to the other.
  
  
• One parcel at the intersection of Generals Highway is the site of the former Naval Institute book warehouse. It was already zoned C-2 commercial and the bill upzones it to C-3.
  
  
• The other three parcels were all residential but are now commercial. These include:
  
  
• Several residential lots along Fowler Road across Bestgate Road from Fowler United Methodist Church;
  
  
• The home site between Sunrise Assisted Living and the 24-hour Emergency Veterinary Clinic. This is to become a new dental clinic;
  
  
• The house at the intersection of Rowe Boulevard and N. Bestgate Road across from St. John Neumann Church;


I voted against these changes for several reasons. First, the 2003 Small Area Plan recommended no changes to Bestgate's zoning. Years of public input and thoughtful deliberations went into that Plan. It should not tie the Council's hands, but the Council should only depart from it for good reason and with broad community support.

The Bestgate corridor should be examined in a broad context rather than piecemeal. Before allowing more intense commercial development there in the future, the County should first understand what the impacts will be on traffic, the environment, water and sewer capacity, and the residential quality of life in adjacent neighborhoods.

What's not in the bill

• Changes to Route 2:
  
  In contrast to Bestgate Road, the Council made no changes to Route 2 south of Admiral Cochrane Drive. Several residential property owners had requested amendments to change their zoning to commercial.
  
  The County's long-established policy has been to keep Route 2 residential south of Parole. Neighborhoods such as Gingerville, Wilelinor and Poplar Point have fought time and again to prevent expansion of commercial development there. I ran for office partly on a platform to contain growth and protect the character of these neighborhoods. No member of the Council offered any amendments to upzone properties along Route 2 south of Parole.
  
  
• Samaras agreement:
  

  For the past four months, several community leaders worked hard to negotiate a landmark agreement with the owners of the properties referred to as the Samaras property. These six acres on Bay Ridge Road include the C&C Liquors store across from Georgetown Road, as well as several residences next to and behind it.
  

  The agreement secured several concessions to benefit the community. It would have required the property owners to build LEEDS-certified green buildings; replicate the stormwater runoff as if the land were in its pristine, natural state; protect a forest conservation easement along the rear property line; reduce curb cuts onto Bay Ridge Road; and add a bike path.
  
  In addition to these specific concessions, the property owners agreed to establish a design review board of residents to work with the developer and monitor the project from start to finish. This would have literally given the community a seat at the table to help shape the development in a positive way.

  In return for these concessions, the agreement called for rezoning the balance of the property from R-2 residential to C-1 commercial. Making the property all commercial would have benefited both parties. It would have given the property owners the financial return to pay for the concessions. It also would have meant no more houses along this stretch of Bay Ridge Road, something the community leaders were trying to avoid.
  
  The community representatives who participated in the negotiations shared my belief that some development is inevitable on that site. The purpose of the agreement was to ensure that when the site does get redeveloped, it would be done in a neighborly way that enhanced rather than diminished our quality of life.

  A majority of the County Council voted down the amendment that would have implemented the agreement. Instead the Council adopted an alternate amendment that rezoned only a portion of the front of the property to commercial. Unfortunately, that amendment was inadequate to implement the agreement. It will likely lead to a small strip shopping center in the front and more houses in the rear, exactly what the community leaders didn't want.

It is expected that any major piece of legislation will see some changes as it works its way through the process. Still, it is disappointing that this final bill so clearly disregards the community's will in two areas: by changing portions of Bestgate Road from residential to commercial, and by failing to honor the agreement for the Samaras property.

What's next

County Executive Leopold has signed the bill and it will soon become law. The book is now closed on the Annapolis Neck zoning bill.

Later this year the County expects to start the next General Development Plan. This planning process, expected to take 18 months, will set the blueprint for future county growth, development, and preservation. Although the exact GDP process is unknown, it is likely that the County's immediate focus will be on West County to prepare for the imminent military expansion. The next zoning bill for the Annapolis Neck is probably several years away, if not longer.

Related articles

• The Sun: "County changes rules on land use" (June 6, 2007)
• The Capital: "Backroom deal in council vote?" (June 3, 2007)
• The Capital: "Fate of Samaras property unclear" (May 29, 2007)
  

Annapolis Neck Zoning, at last

On March 5th, County Executive John Leopold and I introduced the long-awaited Annapolis Neck comprehensive zoning bill (Bill No. 13-07). This bill implements the zoning changes recommended by the 2003 Annapolis Neck Small Area Plan (ANSAP).

One of my first priorities after last Fall's election was to work with the Administration to get this bill introduced. Its zoning changes will help protect the character of the peninsula (Read today's story in The Capital.)

A Long Time Coming

This bill completes a process that spans three county administrations. In 1998 then-County Executive John Gary supplemented the countywide General Development Plan (GDP) with a localized planning process based on 16 geographic areas. The Annapolis Neck area was among the first round of Small Area Plans to get started.

The County Council adopted the Plan on March 17th, 2003. Adoption was the first step to formalize the Plan's recommendations. The next step was to implement the zoning changes. That's what this bill does.

What's in the Bill

The bill downzones five areas on the Annapolis Neck Peninsula:

• The most substantive change downzones 604 acres that extend into the South River south of Forest Drive. This land comprises much of the Childs Point, Melvin/Ferry Point and Persimmon Point peninsulas. Their current zoning is either R1 or R2 which allow 1 or 2 houses per acre, respectively. The bill downzones these peninsulas to RLD which is a more rural designation of 1 house per 5 acres.
  
  This downzoning protects about 20 vacant lots on these environmentally sensitive peninsulas from being developed. About 40 lots on these peninsulas are currently vacant, of which about 20 are already restricted by Critical Areas regulations. This zoning bill prevents development on the remaining lots.



• Two of the changes downzone a total of 18.2 acres along MD 665 at the interchange with MD 2.
  Current zoning: C4 and R15
  Proposed zoning: R2 and C3



• The remaining two changes are considered housekeeping and downzone to Open Space all 336 acres of Quiet Waters Park and a small 3.5 acre parcel next to Peninsula Park.
  Current zoning: R1 and R2
  Proposed zoning: OS

What's not in the Bill

The process has taken such a long time that some of the Plan's recommendations no longer apply. For example, the Plan recommended downzoning property next to the Cape St. John community off Riva Road. That property has since been subdivided under the current, higher-density zoning, so that change is not in this bill.

The bill also makes no changes to the Parole Growth Management Area (PGMA). The PGMA is a separate planning area within the Annapolis Neck that encompasses hundreds of acres of land. Parole's current zoning reflects the last adopted Parole plan from 1994, the Parole Urban Design Concept Plan.

In 1999 the County appointed a committee to revise Parole's zoning. The committee produced a report in 2003 titled Parole by Design but it was never adopted. Bill 13-07 maintains the 1994 zoning currently on the books.

The 2003 Parole Plan needs to be revived, but not at the cost of delaying the Annapolis Neck zoning bill even longer. The Administration and I are moving forward with this bill with an understanding that Parole will be revisited soon after the next GDP process.

Next Steps

Citizens can request zoning amendments for any property within the planning area. Amendments must be requested in writing by Monday, March 19th. Forms are available online.

The County Council's public hearing is set for Tuesday, April 3rd at 7 p.m. The public is encouraged to testify or contact the councilmembers in writing.

When the ANSAP process began in 1999, the county imposed a moratorium on any rezonings in the planning area. It was intended to be temporary but has remained in effect because the process has taken so long. As with the other Small Area Plans, the moratorium will expire once the council adopts the rezoning.

The council is expected to vote on the bill in late April or May. The zoning changes will take effect 45 days after the council adopts the bill.

More Resources

Maps

• Map showing all zoning changes


• Map showing peninsula zoning changes

Table of zoning changes

2003 Annapolis Neck Small Area Plan

1994 Parole Urban Design Master Plan

Description of zoning districts

Map of all 16 Small Planning Areas

Zoning amendment request form

Growth Task Force a good first step; now we need a Growth Boundary

For too long, the City of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County have lacked a coordinated effort to manage growth and traffic on the Annapolis Neck Peninsula. The city's recently appointed Growth Task Force may signify the start of a more productive approach.

Mayor Ellen Moyer, County Executive John Leopold and I have all appointed members to this committee (Read the recent Baltimore Sun article about the committee's formation). This three-way participation is important for two reasons.

First, the committee needs buy-in from both the City and the County for its recommendations to have much of a chance. A committee appointed solely by one would be unlikely to carry much weight with the other. Because the County and City both had a role in appointing the Growth Task Force, they both have a vested interest in seeing that its recommendations reach fruition.

The second reason is symbolic but no less important. After many years of minimal city/county cooperation, this joint effort sends a strong signal of change. The mayor and county executive, working together, are the only ones who can set the tone. To that end, both Mayor Moyer and County Executive Leopold deserve credit for starting off on the right foot.

This joint appointment of the members is a good first step. The recently-announced appointment of city and county staff support is also positive. But the commitee has a long and difficult road ahead. For one thing, neither the city nor county has a long-term vision for the city's boundaries. Should the city continue to annex land or not? If so, where and under what conditions? No consensus has ever been reached about a long-term city growth boundary.

Need for a Growth Boundary

During my five years on the Annapolis City Council I was often frustrated by the piecemeal approach toward annexation. In the absence of a long-term growth plan, individual annexations were shaping our destiny for us. Each annexation became the proverbial tail wagging the dog.

The city administration supported each annexation request for several valid reasons: to maintain a robust tax base; to provide for efficient delivery of services; and to control the development of land right on its borders.

Non-city residents angrily opposed the annexations for equally valid reasons: concern about more traffic when Forest Drive was already over capacity; concern about the environmental impact of losing more land to development; and fear that the city would impose its urban vision of development on their suburban neighborhoods.

The one thing people on both sides of the debate agreed on was the need for a clear plan to govern annexations. Everyone agreed that the existing piecemeal approach made no sense.

Now is the time to do it. The Growth Task Force is the first body in years with the stature and political buy-in to pursue this goal.

Easier Said Than Done

Despite the need for an urban growth boundary, and despite the widespread agreement that we need one, there is a reason why we don't have one yet: talking specifics is a lot harder than talking in generalities. In other words, it's fine to talk about a growth boundary just so long as that boundary is nowhere near me.

I do not have a specific proposal to offer, but such a plan should not be the brainchild of one politician. It requires public input and serious discussion among stakeholders to find common ground between the city's and county's general development plans.

This is where the Growth Task Force comes in. It is comprised of both city and non-city residents. It enjoys the support of political leaders without the baggage of being perceived as "political." It has a unique opportunity to chart a new course for our future.

As difficult as this goal may be to achieve, we need to try. Otherwise we are willingly condemning ourselves to more of the status quo: an adversarial situation in which pro-annexation forces and anti-annexation forces, like two opposing armies, hunker down in their trenches and fight fiercely over a few acres of ground -- well-intentioned people expending tremendous amounts of time and energy fighting each other instead of working together in support of a shared plan.

Fortunately, we know that this goal is achievable. Other jurisdictions around the country have done it. Our neighbor Baltimore County has done it with its long-standing URDL (Urban Rural Demarcation Line). Granted, Baltimore County has no municipalities, but it faces the same development pressures we do.

If Baltimore County can do it, why can't we? It's time for us to try.