I spent yesterday doing some research into CB29-2009, which should be entitled "Bill Allowing Fox to Guard Chicken Coup." I found some interesting tidbits here.
First, theoriginal zoning regulation amendment request (ZRA 102) was made by the Wilde Lake Business Trust, which is one of the many business entities in our state that exist in an ephermal state as far as campaign finance regulations are concerned. I won't claim that there was a direct intent to hide anything, as the contact e-mail address is for Kimco Realty. However, this "Trust" is made up of multiple development companies, most of which have donated heavily to our county council. Free speech is grand, but the disclosure of contributions is required for amendment requests and one must figure that all the little guys are hiding behind the elephant in the room that is Kimco Realty.
Second, in October 2008 the Department of Planning and Zoning (under Executive Ulman) recommended the approval of ZRA 102 with some amendments, most notably refining the allowed uses and density as well as the definition for Village Center.
Third, in May 2009 the Planning Board discussed but did not pass (2-2) ZRA 102. The Board recommended further research into the implications of the Amendment and the many unanswered concerns of the community. Most of these concerns boiled down to whether or not this bill would open a door that could never be closed on development in Columbia. The Board expressed concern to the residential land use provision of allowing residential property to develop within the town centers, taking up space originally intended for commercial use. There was an undercurrent of concern (as there should be) as to whether village centers would become new locales for low income housing.
Finally, Mary Kay Sigtay introduced CB 29-2009. This bill incorporated some of the amendments recommended by the DPZ, but, most importantly, retained the language of allowing amendments "to any use or density" as long as the amendment complied with existing county law. Councilman Sigtay appears to have completely ignored the Planning Board report and the concerns expressed therein.
Some Thoughts:
This bill is tied to the failing health of the Wilde Lake Village Center, but as noted in the DPZ Technical Report, the vague use of the term "Village Center" was not necessary. The amendment could easily have been directed toward the Wilde Lake Village Center or the term "Village Center" could have been defined in such a way to limit the application of the amendment.
Think of Village Centers as ground zero. This bill would allow the village center boundaries to expand as developers apply for new zoning under the law. This is NOT a limited bill.
Village Centers, in the original plan for Columbia, were intended to have a measure of harmony amongst the businesses (i.e., a barber shop, pizza place, and liquor store rather than two liquor stores and a 30 story hotel). This bill would in effect end those master plans.
Getcha Shoes on, it's time to Testify.
First, theoriginal zoning regulation amendment request (ZRA 102) was made by the Wilde Lake Business Trust, which is one of the many business entities in our state that exist in an ephermal state as far as campaign finance regulations are concerned. I won't claim that there was a direct intent to hide anything, as the contact e-mail address is for Kimco Realty. However, this "Trust" is made up of multiple development companies, most of which have donated heavily to our county council. Free speech is grand, but the disclosure of contributions is required for amendment requests and one must figure that all the little guys are hiding behind the elephant in the room that is Kimco Realty.
Second, in October 2008 the Department of Planning and Zoning (under Executive Ulman) recommended the approval of ZRA 102 with some amendments, most notably refining the allowed uses and density as well as the definition for Village Center.
Third, in May 2009 the Planning Board discussed but did not pass (2-2) ZRA 102. The Board recommended further research into the implications of the Amendment and the many unanswered concerns of the community. Most of these concerns boiled down to whether or not this bill would open a door that could never be closed on development in Columbia. The Board expressed concern to the residential land use provision of allowing residential property to develop within the town centers, taking up space originally intended for commercial use. There was an undercurrent of concern (as there should be) as to whether village centers would become new locales for low income housing.
Finally, Mary Kay Sigtay introduced CB 29-2009. This bill incorporated some of the amendments recommended by the DPZ, but, most importantly, retained the language of allowing amendments "to any use or density" as long as the amendment complied with existing county law. Councilman Sigtay appears to have completely ignored the Planning Board report and the concerns expressed therein.
Some Thoughts:
This bill is tied to the failing health of the Wilde Lake Village Center, but as noted in the DPZ Technical Report, the vague use of the term "Village Center" was not necessary. The amendment could easily have been directed toward the Wilde Lake Village Center or the term "Village Center" could have been defined in such a way to limit the application of the amendment.
Think of Village Centers as ground zero. This bill would allow the village center boundaries to expand as developers apply for new zoning under the law. This is NOT a limited bill.
Village Centers, in the original plan for Columbia, were intended to have a measure of harmony amongst the businesses (i.e., a barber shop, pizza place, and liquor store rather than two liquor stores and a 30 story hotel). This bill would in effect end those master plans.
Getcha Shoes on, it's time to Testify.
Note: An earlier draft stated that Calvin Ball introduced this bill. That was incorrect. It was introduced by the Chair and I had incorrectly noted that to be Councilman Ball when it was in fact Mary Kay Sigtay. I apologize for the error.
Taxpayers throughout the county should be concerned about this. We are picking up the tab for development, as roads are widened, schools are built, water and sewer are expanded and repaired.
ReplyDeleteThis is not limited to Columbia, folks.
Yes, time to testify.
Calvin Ball did not introduce this bill. Please get your facts correct. I know you support his opponent. However, that's no reason to lie.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteI've correct the error and apologize for any harm it may have caused.
That's a reasonable error. Because Ball was the Chair the first year, when we were getting to know this new Council, many still think he is :-)
ReplyDelete