|
JUlY 2002
<br />
<br />AMJ:RICAN
<br />PLANNING
<br />ASSOCIATION
<br />
<br />Maryland Resuscitates
<br />Land-Use Intervention Authority
<br />
<br /> By Michele LeFaivre
<br />
<br /> n the name of smart growth, the Maryland Department of
<br />· Planning (MDP) has dusted offa 28-year-old statute that
<br /> allows it to intervene in local land-use proceedings.
<br /> "When a proposal has potential to unleash sprawl
<br /> development," Maryland Governor Parris Glendening declared
<br /> last May when he unveiled the new initiative, "we will intervene
<br /> before planning boards, before county councils and county
<br /> commissions, and before the courts."
<br /> The largely unused 1974 law grants the MDP the right to
<br /> participate through attendance or testimony in local hearings
<br /> regarding land use, development, or construction. The law
<br /> confers automatic legal standing to MDP to involve itself in any
<br /> subsequent appeal or judicial review. Lbr_.fil governments also
<br /> may request MDP's participation on their behalf.
<br />
<br /> Why Now?
<br /> The timing of the law's resuscitation, contends Jim Noonan, the
<br /> MDP's director of planning services, simply reflects the
<br /> department's experience with Maryland's 1992 Economic
<br /> Growth, Resource Protection, and Planning Act and the 1997
<br /> Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Act. "The
<br /> governor decided to use the law to break the disconnect between
<br /> the state program and its enforcement without creating a new
<br />. bureaucracy or interfering with local land-use authority,"
<br /> Noonan says.
<br /> The challenge of the 1992 and 1997 acts, Noonan points
<br /> out, is that they were enacted with almost no enforcement tools
<br /> for the state government. The 1992 act required local
<br /> comprehensive plans to incorporate seven "visions"-including,'
<br />
<br /> QUES.TIOHS [/~?B.'OUT THIS
<br /> ARTICLE~,~~ JOIN US
<br />
<br />Zoning News· Michele Le.'Faiv[e will be available to
<br />answer questions about ~i~cle. Go to the ~a
<br />website at ~.p annmg:~rg'and follow the linM co the
<br />"~k the Author" section. From there, just submit your
<br />questions about the articl~ using an e-mail link The
<br />author will reply, posting the answers cumulatively on
<br />the website for the benefit of all subscribers· This feature
<br />will be available following selected issues o~Zoning News
<br />ar announced dines. ~ter each online discussion is
<br />closed, the answers will be saved in an online archive
<br />available through the APA Zoning News webpages.
<br />
<br />among other things, that environmentally sensitive areas be
<br />protected, that. land-use regulations be streamlined, and that
<br />adequate public facilities be available in areas designated for
<br />growth. MDP staff reviews local plans for consistency with state
<br />goals, especially the seven visions. The 1997 act directed the
<br />state to focus its financial resources for growth-related spending
<br />in "priority funding areas," as voluntarily designated by local
<br />government or in areas specifically listed in the act. Growth-
<br />related funding in other areas is permitted only under
<br />"extraordinary circumstances~"
<br />
<br /> "When a proposal has potential to
<br /> unleash sPrawl development.., we will
<br /> intervene be!ore :planning boards, before
<br /> county councils and county commissionS,
<br /> and before the courts."
<br /> --MARYLAND GOVERNOR D^RRIS GI. ENDfiNING
<br />
<br /> In 1999, the MDP assessed the anticipated growth projected by
<br />the local comprehensive plans required by the 1992 act. Based on
<br />that assessment, Noonan says, "We decided to use our intervention
<br />authority to sit at a table with local governments as an indirect tool
<br />to do a better job with the state's allocation of resources.'
<br />
<br />ChOosing Cases
<br />So far, MDP has intervened, to oppose one commercial
<br />development proposal and to involve itself in two residential
<br />development projects. In its first foray, MDP supported the Kent
<br />County planning commission's rejection of a proposed Wal-Mart
<br />just outside Chestertown, a 300-year-old town of 4;000 people on
<br />the Chesapeake Bay. The county planning commission based-its
<br />decision in part on MDP staff testimony against the project and an
<br />MDP-prepared report. The report concluded that a smaller store
<br />wotdd "increase [Wal-Mart'si likelihood of success and lessen the
<br />negative economic impact on existing commercial centers and
<br />businesses within the market area." Represented by the state
<br />attorney general, MDP also filed a legal brief opposing Wal-Mart's
<br />appeal of the commission's decision.
<br /> MDP also is interceding in residential development projects
<br />on design and density issues, in the second case involving an
<br />area in downtown Annapolis' near the state capital waterfront,
<br />MDP staff testified favorably at a public hearing on Acton's
<br />Landing, a 4½-acre development of 114 luxury town houses, --
<br />condominiums, and single-family homes. MDP supported the
<br />development, one of the largest residential projects ever built in
<br />the city's historic district, for its compact development and its
<br />reuse ora former hospital. MDP said it favored Acton's
<br />Landing's design and scale, which is sensitive to the historic
<br />city, plus the fact that residents could walk to work and nearby
<br />shops. A neighborhood group is currently appealing the
<br />approval of Acton's Landing by the city board of appeals,
<br />allegiBg that the project exceeds the density permitted by law.
<br /> Lasdy, MDP interceded in Paridands, a 200-acre site
<br />planned as a mixed-use project of 425 single-family homes and
<br />
<br />
<br />
|