This is the full text of suggested amendments to zoning and subdivision legislature facing the County Council in January 2005.  These were all passed by a vote of the GSPC delegates on January 11, 2005.

Greater Severna Park Council, Inc.

Proposed Amendment Bill 4-05 Zoning

File: GSPC Amendment # 1, Requirement for being a Party in AHO Proceedings Requirement

Code:              Article 3 County Board of Appeals, Title 2 Zoning Appeals, §1-104(a) Right of Appeal

Issue:              Requiring participation before the Administrative Hearing Officer to have standing to take an

                       Appeal to the Board of Appeals from the Opinion of the Administrative Hearing Officer .

Comment:        Current Code does not have this requirement. Parties not “actively” participating in the AHO

proceedings would now be precluded appealing to the Board. 

There may well be cases where the issues before the AHO at the time of filing are quite different from those that arise after the AHO has made a finding of the facts and the application of the law of the case as contained in the AHO Opinion.  As the AHO is fashioning elements of the Opinion for the case at hand, conditions placed on the applicant, or their lack thereof, may well aggrieve non-participant nearby property owners. This procedure will require parties with only speculative interest at the Administrative Officer Hearing level to file and unnecessarily burden the procedure.  It is a great waste of citizen and staff time and effort and adds nothing to the quality of the procedure.  

On this note, the current provision of allowing a party to initiate or join the appeal without appearing in the AHO proceeding is appropriate and necessary. 

Amendment: Remove “WHO WAS A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDINGS” in lines 7 and 8 on page 3 of Bill

                      4-05 in Article 3 County Board of Appeals, Title 2 Zoning Appeals, §1-104(a) Right of Appeal.

Note:               More than a two-thirds majority of the Delegates to the Greater Severna Park Council, Inc., approved the above discussion and amendment at the monthly meeting on January 11, 2005.

AMJ:\bill 4-05\gspc issues amendment\gspc 4-05 #1 party in aho

Proposed Amendment Bill 4-05 Zoning

File:                GSPC Amendment 4-05 # 3b Aggrieved Status

Code Section: ARTICLE 3 COUNTY BOARD OF APPEALS, TITLE 2. ZONING APPEALS,

§1-104 Right of Appeal, page 3 of Bill 4-05 Zoning

Issue:              Provide “aggrieved” status for community organizations.                              

Comment:        Stanley Abrams in his treatise, Guide to Maryland Zoning Decisions, Third Edition, on page 152 describes the history of “aggrieved status” as follows:

                                    “The requirement that a person must be “aggrieved” in order to appeal either to a zoning board or from a zoning board to a court of record generally appears in State Zoning Enabling acts and in local zoning ordinances.  This requirement is contained in the Maryland Zoning Enabling Act, Article 66B and Article 28 of the Annotated Code of Maryland.  The word “aggrieved” has generally escaped legislation definition Maryland, but many judicial decisions have consider its meaning and application.”

                                    As noted by Mr. Abrams, in the absence of legislation on the subject, the judicial system has developed case by case a definition of “aggrieved status”.  Obviously going to court is a time consuming and very expensive to obtain the conventional judicial “within sight and sound” expansion of the Anne Arundel 175 foot code provision.  Some time ago Baltimore County exercised its legislative authority as a charter county (as is Anne Arundel) and provided statutory  “aggrieved status” to its People’s Counsel.  The provision was approved by the Courts of Appeal in Peoples Counsel for Baltimore County v. Williams, 45 Md. App617, 415 A2d 585, 1980.

                                    In a like manner, Anne Arundel County can, and should, exercise its authority to grant “aggrieved status” to limited community organizations as they are defined in the proposed amendment below.

Amendment:    Add: ARTICLE 3, COUNTY BOARD OF APPEALS, TITLE 2. ZONING APPEALS

§1-104 Right of Appeal

(B) CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATIONS, HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS, CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS, IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATIONS AND COALITIONS OF SUCH ORGANIZATIONS ARE DEFINED AS AN “AGGRIEVED PERSON” AS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 27, SUBTITLE 4. POST-DECISION PROCEDURES AND EVENTS,  §27-16-402, IN ALL CASES INVOLVING ISSUES IN THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 27 ZONING AND ARTICLE 26 SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN THEIR GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES, PROVIDED THE ORGANIZATION FILES WITH THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE THE FOLLOWING:

(I)    THE NAME AND POST OFFICE ADDRESS OF THE ORGANIZTION;

(II)  THE NAME OF THE CONTACT PERSON WHO MAY BE REACHED AT THAT ADDRESS;

(III) A NARATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES OF THE

ORGANIZATION, WHICH CIRCUMSCRIBE ELIGIBLE ORGANIZATION MEMBER PROPERTY AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER;

(IV) THE COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT(S) CONTAINED WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHICAL

        BOUNDRIES OF THE ORGANIZATION. 

Note:               More than a two-thirds majority of the Delegates to the Greater Severna Park Council, Inc., approved the above discussion and amendment at the monthly meeting on January 11, 2005.

AMJ:\gspc issues-amendment\gspc 4-05 #3b aggrieved status

Proposed Amendment Bill 4-05 Zoning

File:                GSPC Amendment 4-05 # 2 Standing

Code Section: Article 3 County Board of Appeals, Title 2, Zoning Appeals, Add §1-104 (b) Right of Appeal

Issue:              Provide “Standing” for community organizations as a “party” to proceedings before the

Administrative Hearing Officer and the Board of Appeals.                           

Comment:        Community and civic organizations are, and have been significant participants in the zoning

process.  The new Article 27 in § 27-16-203(c) specifically provides that Notices shall be sent to these organizations and the hearing may be conducted with certification that the Notice has been provided. To be notified then be denied standing, the Notice provision is a hollow nullity. 

Historically there has been little or no history to prevent them from appearing in 

                        AHO proceedings.  To the contrary, the Chairman of the Board of Appeals has ruled to deny

standing to community organizations as a party to the proceedings contrary to the

            long line of Courts of Appeal cases approving standing for these organizations.  Bryniarski v.

            Montgomery County Bd. Of Appeals, 247 Md. 137, 143-48, 230 A2d 289, 293-96 (1967) and

            the many other cases citing the long standing rule of this case. 

Community organizations should not have to resort to the courts to maintain this legal right.        

Amendment:    Add in Bill 4-05, page no. 3, Article 3 County Board of Appeals, Title 2 Zoning Appeals,

             §1-104 Right of Appeal, line 9:

(B) CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATIONS, HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS, CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS, IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATIONS AND COALITIONS OF SUCH ORGANIZATIONS HAVE FULL STANDING TO APPEAR AS A PARTY BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS PROVIDED THE ORGANIZATION FILES WITH THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE:

(I)    THE NAME AND POST OFFICE ADDRESS OF THE ORGANIZTION;

(II)  THE NAME OF THE CONTACT PERSON WHO MAY BE REACHED AT THAT ADDRESS;

(III) THE GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES OF THE ORGANIZATION;

(IV) THE COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT(S) WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDRIES OF THE

        ORGANIZATION. 

Add in Bill 4-05 Zoning, Article 27 Zoning, Title 16 Administrative Hearings, § 27-16-203(E)

Right of Appeal

(E) CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATIONS, HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS, CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS, IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATIONS AND COALITIONS OF SUCH ORGANIZATIONS HAVE FULL STANDING TO APPEAR AS A PARTY BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER  PROVIDED THE ORGANIZATION FILES WITH THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE:

(I)    THE NAME AND POST OFFICE ADDRESS OF THE ORGANIZTION;

(II)  THE NAME OF THE CONTACT PERSON WHO MAY BE REACHED AT THAT ADDRESS;

(III) THE GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES OF THE ORGANIZATION;

(IV) THE COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT(S) WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDRIES OF THE

        ORGANIZATION. 

Reference:       27-13-302(c), 27-13-404(c) and 27-16-203(c).

Note:   More than a two-thirds majority of the Delegates to the Greater Severna Park Council, Inc., approved the above discussion and amendment at the monthly meeting on January 11, 2005.

AMJ:\Bill 4-05\gspc issues-amendment\gspc 4-05 #2 standing

Proposed Amendment Bill 4-05 Zoning

File:                GSPC Amendment 4-05 # 4a Bed & Breakfast Homes

Code Section: Article 27 Zoning, Title 4 Residential Districts, §27-4-106 Permitted, conditional and special

exception uses.

Issue:              Bed & Breakfast Homes in R1 & R2 as conditional uses. .                           

Comment:        Bill 68-04 Zoning, (now withdrawn) authorized Bed & Breakfast Homes as follows:

                                                                               RA   RLD      R1     R2       R5

                        Bill 4-05 Zoning, (introduced 1-3-05) authorized Bed & Breakfast Homes as follows:

                                                                              RA   RLD       R1     R2       R5

Comment:                    New Bed and breakfast homes are not currently a permitted, conditional or special exception use in R1 or R2.  Existing Homes as of July 1, 1991, are grandfathered R1 conditional uses per §28-2-302(b)(1) and R2 conditional uses per 28-2-402(b)(2)

The concern of permitting future Bed & Breakfast Homes in upscale waterfront communities motivated the Greater Severna Park Council to propose an amendment to Bill 68-04 removing Bed & Breakfast Homes as a use in R1, R2 and R5.  The Administration responded in Bill 4-05 removing Bed & Breakfast Homes in RLD and R5 as shown above but left the use in R1 and R2. 

Severn River communities impacted by this new provision are Point Field Landing, Ben Oaks, Lakeland, Fair Winds, Bluff Point, Colchester, Olde Severna Park, Linstead, Round Bay, Swan Point, Rugby Hall, Glen Oban, etc. Magothy River communities are Manhattan Beach, Twin Harbors, etc.  Non-waterfront communities of Shipley’s Choice, Chartwell, Brittingham, Kilmarnock, Solomon’s Ridge, Belleview Estates, Woodbridge Forest, etc. would also be impacted.  Introduction of Bed & Breakfast Homes in these communities would amount to one of the most “value depreciating” events that could be imagined.  This one provision alone amounts to being a “deal breaker” for Bill 4-05 and raises the specter of a potential petition to referendum.

Testimony during the Public Hearing on Bill 68-04 identified that Bed & Breakfast Homes is a regional issue in the South County Maritime area.  Since the use continues as a Conditional Use in MA2, MB, MC and a permitted use SB, these zones may be a more appropriate location for this use.  An overlay zone such as Maritime Revitalization or Residential Revitalization, could be also be developed.  Waterman’s home commercial use, is not defined in §27-1-101, Defini-tions.  Including a “bed & breakfast ” function within the existing Waterman’s home commercial use, might well solve the problem. Any of the above proposals cold address the South County Maritime issue and not impose a draconian impact all over the rest of the County

Amendment:    Remove Bed and breakfast homes Conditional Use from table on page 36 in R1and R2.

Note:               More than a two-thirds majority of the Delegates to the Greater Severna Park Council, Inc.,                           approved the above discussion and amendment at the monthly meeting on January 11, 2005.

AMJ:\bill 4-05\gspc issues-amendment\gspc 4-05 #4a bed & breakfast homes

Proposed Amendment Bill 4-05 Zoning

File:                GSPC Amendment 4-05 # 4a Bed & Breakfast Homes

Code Section: Article 27 Zoning, Title 4 Residential Districts, §27-4-106 Permitted, conditional and special

exception uses.

Issue:              Bed & Breakfast Homes in R1 & R2 as conditional uses. .                           

Comment:        Bill 68-04 Zoning, (now withdrawn) authorized Bed & Breakfast Homes as follows:

                                                                               RA   RLD      R1     R2       R5

                        Bill 4-05 Zoning, (introduced 1-3-05) authorized Bed & Breakfast Homes as follows:

                                                                              RA   RLD       R1     R2       R5

Comment:                    New Bed and breakfast homes are not currently a permitted, conditional or special exception use in R1 or R2.  Existing Homes as of July 1, 1991, are grandfathered R1 conditional uses per §28-2-302(b)(1) and R2 conditional uses per 28-2-402(b)(2)

The concern of permitting future Bed & Breakfast Homes in upscale waterfront communities motivated the Greater Severna Park Council to propose an amendment to Bill 68-04 removing Bed & Breakfast Homes as a use in R1, R2 and R5.  The Administration responded in Bill 4-05 removing Bed & Breakfast Homes in RLD and R5 as shown above but left the use in R1 and R2. 

Severn River communities impacted by this new provision are Point Field Landing, Ben Oaks, Lakeland, Fair Winds, Bluff Point, Colchester, Olde Severna Park, Linstead, Round Bay, Swan Point, Rugby Hall, Glen Oban, etc. Magothy River communities are Manhattan Beach, Twin Harbors, etc.  Non-waterfront communities of Shipley’s Choice, Chartwell, Brittingham, Kilmarnock, Solomon’s Ridge, Belleview Estates, Woodbridge Forest, etc. would also be impacted.  Introduction of Bed & Breakfast Homes in these communities would amount to one of the most “value depreciating” events that could be imagined.  This one provision alone amounts to being a “deal breaker” for Bill 4-05 and raises the specter of a potential petition to referendum.

Testimony during the Public Hearing on Bill 68-04 identified that Bed & Breakfast Homes is a regional issue in the South County Maritime area.  Since the use continues as a Conditional Use in MA2, MB, MC and a permitted use SB, these zones may be a more appropriate location for this use.  An overlay zone such as Maritime Revitalization or Residential Revitalization, could be also be developed.  Waterman’s home commercial use, is not defined in §27-1-101, Defini-tions.  Including a “bed & breakfast ” function within the existing Waterman’s home commercial use, might well solve the problem. Any of the above proposals cold address the South County Maritime issue and not impose a draconian impact all over the rest of the County

Amendment:    Remove Bed and breakfast homes Conditional Use from table on page 36 in R1and R2.

Note:               More than a two-thirds majority of the Delegates to the Greater Severna Park Council, Inc.,                           approved the above discussion and amendment at the monthly meeting on January 11, 2005.

AMJ:\bill 4-05\gspc issues-amendment\gspc 4-05 #4a bed & breakfast homes

File:                GSPC Amendment 4-05 # 5a Bed & Breakfast Inns

Code Section: Article 27 Zoning, Title 4 Residential Districts, §27-4-106 Permitted, conditional and special

exception uses.

Issue:              Bed & Breakfast Inns in R1 & R2 as special exception uses. .                                  

Comment:        Bill 68-04 Zoning, (now withdrawn) authorized Bed & Breakfast Inns as follows:

                                                                               RA   RLD      R1     R2       R5

                        Bill 4-05 Zoning, (introduced 1-3-05) authorized Bed & Breakfast Inns as follows:

                                                                              RA   RLD       R1     R2       R5

Comment:        New Bed and breakfast homes are not currently a permitted, conditional or special exception use in R1 per current Zoning Code § 28-2-302 and §28-2-303 or R2 per §28-2-402 and §28-2-403 . 

The concern of permitting Bed & Breakfast Inns in waster-front communities such as Point Field Landing, Ben Oaks, Lakeland, Fair Winds, Bluff Point, Colchester, Olde Severna Park, Linstead, Round Bay, Swan Point, Rugby Hall, Glen Oban, etc., located on the Severn River motivated the Greater Severna Park Council to propose an amendment to Bill 68-04 removing Bed & Breakfast Inns completely as a use in Bill 68-04.  Non-waterfront communities of Shipley’s Choice, Chartwell, Brittingham, Kilmarnock, Solomon’s Ridge, Belleview Estates, Woodbridge Forest, etc. are also impacted.  Waterfront communities on the Magothy River involve Manhattan Beach, Twin Harbors, etc.

                        The Administration in presenting Bill 4-05 removed Bed & Breakfast Inns in RLD as shown above but left the use in the R1 and R2 communities identified above.  The introduction of Bed & Breakfast Inns in these communities would amount to one of the most “value depreciating” events that could be imagined.  This one provision alone amounts to being a “deal breaker” for Bill 4-05 and raises the specter of a potential petition to referendum.

Testimony during the Public Hearing on Bill 68-04 identified that Bed & Breakfast Inns is a regional issue in the South County Maritime area.  Since the use continues as a Special Exception Use in MA2, MB, MC and a permitted use SB, these zones are a more appropriate location for this use.  An overlay zones such as Maritime Revitalization or Residential Revitalization, could also be developed to limit the use to where it is needed.  Waterman’s home commercial use, is not defined in §27-1-101 Definitions.  Including an “Inns” function within a Waterman’s home commercial use, might also be a solution. Any of the above proposals could address the South County Maritime issue and not impose a draconian impact all over the rest of the County

Amendment:    Remove Bed and breakfast inns as a Special exception use from table on page 36 in R1and R2.

Note:               More than a two-thirds majority of the Delegates to the Greater Severna Park Council, Inc.,                           approved the above discussion and amendment at the monthly meeting on January 11, 2005.

AMJ:\bill 4-05\gspc issues-amendment\gspc 4-05 #5a bed & breakfast inns

Proposed Amendment Bill 4-05 Zoning

File:                GSPC Amendment 4-05 # 6 Waterfront Permit Notification

Code Section:  Article 27 Zoning, Title 2 General Provisions, §27-2-402 Principal structures

Issue:               Grading and Building Permit Application Notice to abutting waterfront property owners.

Comment:        The long-standing current requirement in current Article §10-101.1(e) requiring the Office of Planning & Zoning to notify “all owners of adjacent property” as to the “location of the principal structure” has been deleted from the pending Article 27 Zoning. 

                        The history of issued permits quietly spending the 30 day appeal period incognito and then emerging to the consternation of the adjacent property owners and their community association is of great concern and is the basis for our opposition. This notification is vital to the rights of adjacent property owners and their associations to participate in the zoning process.

Amendment:    ARTICLE 27, TITLE 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS, SUBTITLE 4. WATERFRONT PROVISIONS, §27-2-402 Principal structures.

                        ADD: (C) APPLICANTS FOR A GRADING OR BUILDING PERMIT WILL INCLUDE AN AFFIDAVIT CERTIFYING THAT THEY HAVE MAILED A COPY OF THE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS LISTED IN THE MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS AND TAXATION REAL PROPERTY DATABASE LOCATED WITHIN 175 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BY CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED. COPIES OF THE RETURNED RECEIPTS SHALL BE ATTACHED TO THE APPLICATION. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THESE PROPERTY OWNERS EXTENDS THE TIME LIMIT FOR THEIR APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS UNTIL THE APPLICANT CAN DOCUMENT THAT THE REQUIRED NOTIFICATION HAS BEEN MADE OR ONE YEAR AFTER THE PERMIT DATE OF ISSUE.

Note:               More than a two-thirds majority of the Delegates to the Greater Severna Park Council, Inc., approved the above discussion and amendment at the monthly meeting on January 11, 2005.

AMJ:\gspc issues-amendment\gspc 4-05 #6 waterfront permit notification

File:                GSPC Amendment 4-05 # 5a Bed & Breakfast Inns

Code Section: Article 27 Zoning, Title 4 Residential Districts, §27-4-106 Permitted, conditional and special

exception uses.

Issue:              Bed & Breakfast Inns in R1 & R2 as special exception uses. .                                  

Comment:        Bill 68-04 Zoning, (now withdrawn) authorized Bed & Breakfast Inns as follows:

                                                                               RA   RLD      R1     R2       R5

                        Bill 4-05 Zoning, (introduced 1-3-05) authorized Bed & Breakfast Inns as follows:

                                                                              RA   RLD       R1     R2       R5

Comment:        New Bed and breakfast homes are not currently a permitted, conditional or special exception use in R1 per current Zoning Code § 28-2-302 and §28-2-303 or R2 per §28-2-402 and §28-2-403 . 

The concern of permitting Bed & Breakfast Inns in waster-front communities such as Point Field Landing, Ben Oaks, Lakeland, Fair Winds, Bluff Point, Colchester, Olde Severna Park, Linstead, Round Bay, Swan Point, Rugby Hall, Glen Oban, etc., located on the Severn River motivated the Greater Severna Park Council to propose an amendment to Bill 68-04 removing Bed & Breakfast Inns completely as a use in Bill 68-04.  Non-waterfront communities of Shipley’s Choice, Chartwell, Brittingham, Kilmarnock, Solomon’s Ridge, Belleview Estates, Woodbridge Forest, etc. are also impacted.  Waterfront communities on the Magothy River involve Manhattan Beach, Twin Harbors, etc.

                        The Administration in presenting Bill 4-05 removed Bed & Breakfast Inns in RLD as shown above but left the use in the R1 and R2 communities identified above.  The introduction of Bed & Breakfast Inns in these communities would amount to one of the most “value depreciating” events that could be imagined.  This one provision alone amounts to being a “deal breaker” for Bill 4-05 and raises the specter of a potential petition to referendum.

Testimony during the Public Hearing on Bill 68-04 identified that Bed & Breakfast Inns is a regional issue in the South County Maritime area.  Since the use continues as a Special Exception Use in MA2, MB, MC and a permitted use SB, these zones are a more appropriate location for this use.  An overlay zones such as Maritime Revitalization or Residential Revitalization, could also be developed to limit the use to where it is needed.  Waterman’s home commercial use, is not defined in §27-1-101 Definitions.  Including an “Inns” function within a Waterman’s home commercial use, might also be a solution. Any of the above proposals could address the South County Maritime issue and not impose a draconian impact all over the rest of the County

Amendment:    Remove Bed and breakfast inns as a Special exception use from table on page 36 in R1and R2.

Note:               More than a two-thirds majority of the Delegates to the Greater Severna Park Council, Inc.,                           approved the above discussion and amendment at the monthly meeting on January 11, 2005.

AMJ:\bill 4-05\gspc issues-amendment\gspc 4-05 #5a bed & breakfast inns

Proposed Amendment Bill 4-05 Zoning

File:                GSPC Amendment 4-05 # 8 Zoning district map line adjustments

Code Section: Article 27 Zoning, Title 4 Residential Districts, Subtitle 1, §27-2-105 Zoning district map line

adjustments.

Issue:              Map corrections by the Office of Planning & Zoning without review by the County Council.

Comment:        The zoning map process concludes with the County Council approving a given map or a change to a map.

 §27-2-104 provides that the map changes be certified by the Administrative Officer after adoption by the County Council. 

Changes, even though they may be drafting errors, should be corrected by the same technique that generates them initially, namely legislative action by the County Council.  This proposed procedure also provides the County Council information for its oversight responsibilities for zoning administration.

Amendment:    Rephrase §27-2-105 to read as follows:

§27-2-105 Zoning district map line adjustments.

        The Office of Planning and Zoning may adjust WILL PERIODICALLY SUBMIT TO THE COUNTY COUNCIL FOR THEIR ENACTMENT PROPOSED CHANGES TO adjust a zoning district map line to follow a lot line, road, river, or other clear boundary if the existing map line approximately follows a lot line or other boundary but does not precisely follow it because of a drafting error or because the information on the base map was corrected based on a new survey or other improved information.

Note:               More than a two-thirds majority of the Delegates to the Greater Severna Park Council, Inc.,                           approved the above discussion and amendment at the monthly meeting on January11, 2005.

AMJ:\bill 4-05\gspc issues amendment\gspc 4-05 #8 Zoning district map line adjustments.

Proposed Amendment Bill 4-05 Zoning

File:                GSPC Amendment 4-05 # 8 Zoning district map line adjustments

Code Section: Article 27 Zoning, Title 4 Residential Districts, Subtitle 1, §27-2-105 Zoning district map line

adjustments.

Issue:              Map corrections by the Office of Planning & Zoning without review by the County Council.

Comment:        The zoning map process concludes with the County Council approving a given map or a change to a map.

 §27-2-104 provides that the map changes be certified by the Administrative Officer after adoption by the County Council. 

Changes, even though they may be drafting errors, should be corrected by the same technique that generates them initially, namely legislative action by the County Council.  This proposed procedure also provides the County Council information for its oversight responsibilities for zoning administration.

Amendment:    Rephrase §27-2-105 to read as follows:

§27-2-105 Zoning district map line adjustments.

        The Office of Planning and Zoning may adjust WILL PERIODICALLY SUBMIT TO THE COUNTY COUNCIL FOR THEIR ENACTMENT PROPOSED CHANGES TO adjust a zoning district map line to follow a lot line, road, river, or other clear boundary if the existing map line approximately follows a lot line or other boundary but does not precisely follow it because of a drafting error or because the information on the base map was corrected based on a new survey or other improved information.

Note:               More than a two-thirds majority of the Delegates to the Greater Severna Park Council, Inc.,                           approved the above discussion and amendment at the monthly meeting on January11, 2005.

AMJ:\bill 4-05\gspc issues amendment\gspc 4-05 #8 Zoning district map line adjustments.

File:                GSPC Amendment 4-05 # 9 Adequate public facilities - rezoning

Code Section: Article 27 Zoning, Title 16 Administrative Hearings, §27-16-303 Rezonings.

Issue:               Deleting the requirement to show that adequate public facilities exist for the rezoning.

Comment:        The current Code requirement in §28-16-210  Findings and conclusions, “(b) In a case involving rezoning…” requires that the Administrative Hearing Officer “make an affirmative finding that, “transportation facilities, water and sewerage systems, storm drainage systems, school and fire suppression facilities adequate…to serve the uses allowed by rezoning are either existing or programmed for construction;“. 

This provision has been omitted in the new Section 27-16-303, Rezonings. Removal of this key provision leaves the County in the position of subsidizing applicants for Rezonings.  If public facilities are inadequate for the applicants projected rezoning the nearby communities will be adversely impacted until new facilities can be provided at taxpayer expense.

Amendment:    ADD: Article 27-16-303(b)(5), THERE ARE ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES AS REQUIRED IN ARTICLE 26, TITLE 5.

Note:               More than a two-thirds majority of the Delegates to the Greater Severna Park Council, Inc.,                           approved the above discussion and amendment at the monthly meeting on January 11, 2005.

AMJ:\bill 4-05\gspc issues amendment\gspc #4-05 # 9 Adequate public facilities - rezoning

.

File:                GSPC Amendment 4-05 # 9 Adequate public facilities - rezoning

Code Section: Article 27 Zoning, Title 16 Administrative Hearings, §27-16-303 Rezonings.

Issue:               Deleting the requirement to show that adequate public facilities exist for the rezoning.

Comment:        The current Code requirement in §28-16-210  Findings and conclusions, “(b) In a case involving rezoning…” requires that the Administrative Hearing Officer “make an affirmative finding that, “transportation facilities, water and sewerage systems, storm drainage systems, school and fire suppression facilities adequate…to serve the uses allowed by rezoning are either existing or programmed for construction;“. 

This provision has been omitted in the new Section 27-16-303, Rezonings. Removal of this key provision leaves the County in the position of subsidizing applicants for Rezonings.  If public facilities are inadequate for the applicants projected rezoning the nearby communities will be adversely impacted until new facilities can be provided at taxpayer expense.

Amendment:    ADD: Article 27-16-303(b)(5), THERE ARE ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES AS REQUIRED IN ARTICLE 26, TITLE 5.

Note:               More than a two-thirds majority of the Delegates to the Greater Severna Park Council, Inc.,                           approved the above discussion and amendment at the monthly meeting on January 11, 2005.

AMJ:\bill 4-05\gspc issues amendment\gspc #4-05 # 9 Adequate public facilities - rezoning

File:                GSPC Amendment 4-05 # 10 Adequate facilities – special exceptions

Code Section: Article 27 Zoning, Title 16 Administrative Hearings, §27-16-304 Special exceptions.

Issue:               Deleting the requirement to find that “ the applicant demonstrates that the proposed use will meet the standards for adequacy of facilities…” .

Comment         The current Code requirement in §28-12-104 for, “ the applicant demonstrates that the proposed use will meet the standards for adequacy of facilities…” has been omitted in the new Section 27-16-304, Special Exceptions.

:                       Removal of this key provision leaves the County in the position of subsidizing applicants for Special Exceptions.  If public facilities are inadequate for the applicants projected project the nearby communities will be adversely impacted until new facilities can be provided at taxpayer expense.

Amendment:    ADD: Article 27-16-304, (10) THE APPLICANT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL MEET THE STANDARDS IN ARTICLE 26, TITLE 5. ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES.

Note:               More than a two-thirds majority of the Delegates to the Greater Severna Park Council, Inc.,                           approved the above discussion and amendment at the monthly meeting on January 11, 2005..

AMJ:\bill 4-05\gspc issues amendment\4-05 # 10 Adequate facilities – special exceptions

File:                GSPC Amendment 4-05 # 10 Adequate facilities – special exceptions

Code Section: Article 27 Zoning, Title 16 Administrative Hearings, §27-16-304 Special exceptions.

Issue:               Deleting the requirement to find that “ the applicant demonstrates that the proposed use will meet the standards for adequacy of facilities…” .

Comment         The current Code requirement in §28-12-104 for, “ the applicant demonstrates that the proposed use will meet the standards for adequacy of facilities…” has been omitted in the new Section 27-16-304, Special Exceptions.

:                       Removal of this key provision leaves the County in the position of subsidizing applicants for Special Exceptions.  If public facilities are inadequate for the applicants projected project the nearby communities will be adversely impacted until new facilities can be provided at taxpayer expense.

Amendment:    ADD: Article 27-16-304, (10) THE APPLICANT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL MEET THE STANDARDS IN ARTICLE 26, TITLE 5. ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES.

Note:               More than a two-thirds majority of the Delegates to the Greater Severna Park Council, Inc.,                           approved the above discussion and amendment at the monthly meeting on January 11, 2005..

AMJ:\bill 4-05\gspc issues amendment\4-05 # 10 Adequate facilities – special exceptions