Fwd: Hearing on Wednesday on revised CB-64

[Deni Taveras]

Please review the recent changes to the county bill before preparing/submitting comments.
Thanks,
Deni Taveras

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Doyle Niemann" <doylen...@verizon.net>
Date: Sep 28, 2013 10:13 AM
Subject: Hearing on Wednesday on revised CB-64
To: "Joseline Pena-Melnyk" <jpena...@msn.com>, "Olson, Eric" <EOl...@co.pg.md.us>, "Suchitra Balachandran" <cp_w...@yahoo.com>, <mccb...@verizon.net>, <patm...@verizon.net>, <dtav...@gmail.com>, "Norm Starkey" <nsta...@comcast.net>, "Lisa Holt" <ballo...@msn.com>, "jcrosapepe" <jcros...@yahoo.com>, "Carol Hurwitch" <cah...@verizon.net>, "Tawanna Gaines" <tawann...@hotmail.com>, <barbar...@house.state.md.us>, "Anne Healey" <delegate...@house.state.md.us>, "Lehman, Mary A." <MALe...@co.pg.md.us>, "Paul G. Pinsky" <ppi...@mceanea.org>, "Jolene Ivey" <jolen...@comcast.net>, <carolyn...@gmail.com>

All

To bring you up to date.  Attached is a revised version of CB-64-2013 from the sponsor, along with a copy of the agenda for the hearing on Wednesday. And  below are Councilmember Eric Olson's comments on the hearing.

The revised version of the bill takes a slightly different tack from the original version.

The County Code currently provides that, as a general default, after a transfer of land from the state, university or federal government, the zoning for the transferred property will be for "Reserved-Open-Space" (R-O-S). This is a restrictive category.  The recipient of the property can request for a Zoning Map Amendment (for the transferred land) from the Council before recording the transfer, but if no request is filed, the zoning remains R-O-S.

The original version of the bill removed the default change to R-O-S for the transferred property and it removed the provision that said that if there was no application for a Zoning Map Amendment prior to the recordation of the transfer, the property remains as Reserved Open Space.

The new version of the bill leaves in place the default R-O-S zoning, but only for property that is located in the "rural tier."  For properties outside the Rural Tier, which I believe includes the land on or near the golf course, there would be no default zoning status. The recipient of the land can still file a request for a Zoning Map Amendment with the Council, but failure to do so does not put the property in the R-O-S category.

Should there be a transfer of land around the golf course -- or land in the proposed new road way -- the new bill would have not put in place a restricted zoning status and would leave the recipient free to request an amendment presumably at any time.  It would change the posture of the discussion in a way more favorable to any proposed development and against the preservation of open space. In conjunction with the proposed development at the golf course -- and the idea of building another Interstate exit -- this is not a good idea.

Why should the presumption that land that is now open space should stay as open space unless there is a full public process and agreement on a new status be left in place for land in the rural tier, but changed for all other open space?  There is no need for this change as there is already a defined public process for making zoning changes.

As Eric notes, it is important that there be public representation at the hearing and that the members of the Council's Planning, Zoning and Economic Development Committee hear from community leaders.

Delegate Doyle Niemann

--------------------------------------------------

From: Olson, Eric [mailto:EOl...@co.pg.md.us]
Subject: Re: CB-064-2013 and golf course hearing on October 2nd

Thank you. Each person testifying typically gets up to two minutes to speak on a bill. There is a sign up sheet  in the back of the committee room to place your name on for the bill you wish to address.

The committee meets on the second floor of the County Administration building at 10:30am this Wednesday Oct 2nd. The building is at 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive in Upper Marlboro.

Points to make should be simple about the bill. Don't need to use all two minutes. Oppose the bill since it seems to undermine community protections if state or federal land is sold for development. (And this could also apply elsewhere in the county not just the golf course). The law placing state or federal land in reserved open space zone R-O-S, was designed to protect communities and ensure public input when and if such land is sold. It serves a valuable purpose and should not be changed.

Important thing is to have lots of people show up in opposition, everyone does not have to make long arguments if a few people make the argument up front.