Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/29/2002

Home

I '1 I I I I i I I In March, CarrolPCounty amended che controversial ordinance again, with density calculations reverting co the pre- amendment methodology to overcome the state's objection. This latest amend~nenc also allows one-acre clustered lots, with clustering permitted across zoning lines. The state allocation of farmland preservation funds remains intact. Noonan disagrees that the stace is overstepping its auchoriry. MDP got involved with the Wal-Marc application, he says, because the state had a legitimate incerjurisdictional inceresr in the outcome. When Kent County's planning commission initially approved che rezoning for the Wal-Mart in 1992, Noonan says, "real local interests were not represented. We intervened only after Chestertown's mayor requested our involvement, following a Maryland Court of Special Appeals remand of a citizen challenge to a site review extension for reconsideration of the project's impact on traffic and existing business." MDP wanted to be a party to any legal proceeding co protect the state's interjurisdictional interests, so staff testified at the rehearing. Noonan admits che rehearing occurred after che town retained MDP to analyze the project's economic impacts. MDP's intervention in the Parklands project in Gaithersburg, Noonan says, was intended to help the developer and city implemenc state smart growth policies through the NGA's new community design principles. DePoe explains that Parklands was on hold because the city wanted to take a step back and study how~ieYelopment of the last three parcels zoned for residential use would affect schools. The issue with Parklands for local residents is how increased"density in these parcels will affect the quality of education in Gaithersburg, he Says. "The city believes that school issues are a community concern, Acton's Lan ting and the community needs a certain comfort.level about the effect of increased density in these three parcels on schools." When Gaithetsburg enacted a "residential development deferral" to study the issue, Kienitz threatened to hold back Montgomery, County school funds during a meeting of a state public, school constru.ction, interagency committee, unless the middle school needed to support Parklands was moved 'up.on the county's 2003 school construction capital program.list. Kienitz serves on the committee, which reviews and makes funding recommendations to the Maryland Board of Public Works. While the 1997 Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Act preserved this rote for the state planning secretary, it also contained a provision stating school construction is not prohibited outside a priority area. The provision severely limits the state's use of such funds to enforce smart growth policies. Notably, the Montgomery County school board did not change. its proposed school capital budget program. During its 2002 session, the Maryland General Assembly passed the 2003 school construction program with no funding for the necessary middle school while also approving a $10 million increase in non-construction-related education funding for Montgomery County. " In the Acton's Landing.project; says Dirk Gertitz, ^Ich an urban design planner with the city of Annapolis, MDP's favorable testimony reflected what the local planning department already was supporting. "It's great to have their high-level, support" he said, but noted that ~the governor' got involved with the project simply because he wanted an example of what state smart growth pOliCies are meant to accomplish." Kaplow notes the state interests in these three cases as the state's recognition of a flawed smart growth program. The goal - Of Maryland's smart growth is to "limit sprawl through higher densities in existing communities . . . But if there's one thing that these communities hare more than sprawl, it's higher density in their neighborhoods," he says. ' Kaplow points out as evidence of the program's inherent flaws the "policy disconnect" between Maryland's smart growth goals and new legislation that places limits on redevelopment tax credits. The redevelopment tax credit program is one of the state's fiscal . tools for revitalizing .older communities. Many such communities are local priority funding areas because they already allow the permitted residential :density supported by the state smart growth program and because they offer critical opportunities for economic development. Aa originally enacted, the program provided a 25 . percent tax credit on the cost of rehabilitating buildings in bJstoric areas. While the amendments Glendening approved in his final legislative session this April were not as onerous as anticipated, reducing the allowable Credits to 20 percent, the.reduction will nonetheless make the rehabilitation of'large industrial structures less viable, Kaplow says. Changes.in program requirements, says Kaplow, may jeopardize such rehabilitation projects' economic viability, making local governments harder pressed to comply with the state's growth policies. Harbinger or Isolated CaSe? The legislative authority to intervene in local proceedings is not common in other growth management states. Oregon law alone authorizes the director of the state Department of Land Conservation and Development to seek review of several types of local land-use decisions. Unlike the broad authority granted to Marylaud's stare planning department, Oregon statutes require the director to seek approval from the state Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) before appealing a local land-use decision or participating in the appeal brought by another party. The LCDC may approve such a