Annapolis, MD (July 24, 2024): Anne Arundel County Executive Steuart Pittman issued the following statement after issuing Region 4 Comprehensive Rezoning line-item vetoes:
“Today, for the first time in the five-and-a-half years that I have served as County Executive, I exercised the power of my office to veto legislation. The subject of the vetoes is line items within the Region 4 Rezoning impacting two areas that comprise approximately 44 acres.
The first is 14 acres at 201 Ember Drive, upzoned by a 6-1 Council vote from residential (R1) to industrial (W2). If my veto is not overridden by a vote of five or more Council members, the zoning will remain R1. The second is six properties on Shot Town Road that total 30 acres and were amended by a 4-3 Council vote from R1 to residential low density (RLD).
201 Ember Drive
The Ember Drive property was purchased a year ago by the owner of an adjacent business called Chesapeake Landscape Materials, where landscaping materials are stored and sold, including mulch that is processed and dyed on site. It is forested land between two streams that feed into Lake Waterford and eventually to the Magothy River.
Our Stakeholder Advisory Committee discussed this parcel in detail because of its value to the County as green infrastructure, and the fact that while it is zoned R1, it is unlikely to ever be developed for housing due to proximity to the industrial activity and lack of road access. I remember hearing about it early in the process and confirming that the land use designation should not be changed to industrial for environmental reasons.
The landowner is a civil engineer who is very familiar with County land use regulations and contributes regularly to local political campaigns. In fact, he contributed to my re-election campaign just before the 2022 election. He is aware of the fact that the County has an interest in purchasing the parcel for preservation, and that if it is upzoned to industrial its value will increase substantially. I say that not to suggest that he is a bad person. I actually respect and like him, and met with him about the possibility of this veto so that I could hear his case for upzoning. He has every right to make that case.
The Councilman from District 3 where the lot is located is also somebody who I like and respect, even though our political orientations are different. He proposed the amendment to zone most of the parcel industrial, making a case that allowing this business to expand onto this site is good for the County economically, and that the environmental impact would be limited by a buffer of land that would remain forest. Five of the remaining six Councilmembers voted in favor of the upzoning. I don’t know their reasoning, but the one who voted no said it was to protect the environment.
I agree that Chesapeake Landscape Materials is good for our economy. It currently sits on about 20 acres, and will have the opportunity to expand onto an adjacent 12 acre lot that sits between the one in question and their current site. That property is further from the streams, closer to the road, and WILL be upzoned to allow the business to grow consistent with decisions made during the Plan2040 process.
I am vetoing the upzoning of 201 Ember Drive to remain consistent with Plan2040 and to honor the community-driven process that we created when I took office. I will make my case to all members of the County Council and hope that at least three will step up to protect this sensitive land.
Shot Town Road
It was after the Stakeholder Advisory Committee did their initial planning for Region 4 that a group of African American landowners on Shot Town Road approached the County with a story about how in 1989 the County had downzoned their land without their engagement from mostly R1 to RLD. They had grown up believing that they had the opportunity to build a small number of additional homes to create what they described as a family compound, but the RLD zoning prevented it.
OPZ staff looked at the area and determined that due to its proximity to land zoned R5, a legitimate case could be made for R1 zoning, and recommended that not only those owners’ parcels be zoned R1, but that five adjacent parcels comprising approximately 22 acres also be zoned R1 for consistency. That’s what was in the rezoning bill that went to the County Council.
The District 5 Councilwoman reviewed the history and listened to residents of the area who supported and opposed the rezoning, including owners of the land that was to be zoned R1 but hadn’t requested the change. She proposed an amendment to leave all 11 parcels at RLD, with a sliver of R5 and OS, and it passed 4-3. She took them as a group because she had been led to believe that separating out those who requested the change from those who had not would be seen as spot zoning. Three members of the Council, however, felt strongly that the legacy families should have their R1 zoning restored. They voted no.
I let it be known that I was considering a veto, and planned to visit the impacted families for a tour. After speaking to the Councilwoman from the district, I also agreed to meet with the neighbors who had not asked for R1 zoning on their parcels. Here is what I learned from those visits.
It is beautiful land, mostly covered with mature forest, including steep slopes and some wetlands. None of the residents want it to change significantly. There is an undercurrent of distrust between the legacy families and the ones who built there more recently, but a common love of the forest and the land.
The legacy families are offended when they hear their neighbors and nearby community associations suggesting that R1 zoning could lead to some 80 new homes. They know that most of the land is not developable regardless of zoning, and they are passionately committed to restoring the zoning, and thereby the value, of what their parents passed on to them.
The families who oppose the upzoning say that they are ok with a handful of homes for relatives, but fear the impact of a large subdivision.
So I asked my staff to consult with the Office of Law on whether I have the legal authority to veto only the part of the Councilwoman’s amendment that impacts the families that asked for restoration of the R1 zoning that they lost in 1989. The answer came back that I do, and that is the extent of this veto.
I also asked how many houses could be approved for development on the 30 acres to be zoned R1 after application of restrictions for specimen trees, steep slopes, and other environmental and adequate public facilities laws. The answer was that while the number would be far less than 30, there was no way to do an estimate without the kind of detailed survey that is required as part of a development application.
I am confident that by restoring the zoning that was taken away from these families in 1989, justice will be served and the natural resources in this area will be protected.
Gratitude
Lastly, I want to acknowledge the extraordinary efforts made by staff at our Office of Planning and Zoning, Office of Law, my office, and members of the County Council and their staff throughout this process. Every one of them understands that our shared future is at stake as we make these hard decisions, and that’s why they have all acted with integrity and urgency to meet deadlines and deliver accurate information.
I hope everyone finds a way to take a relaxing break from this work before diving into the process for the remaining six regions of our county.”