Changing the Face of Anne Arundel County?

You’ve read a lot in these letters about our efforts to manage growth and development in Anne Arundel County, and how proud I am that we are implementing so many of the legislative recommendations that our residents made in Plan2040 and our nine Region Plans.

You’ve also read about my frustrations with government processes, with how complex our laws are, and how long it takes to approve the kinds of development that we say we want.

One of the things that everyone recognizes is that our Zoning Code, Article 18, gets amended on a regular basis, usually to address a specific concern raised by a community or a landowner, and that it has become a very cumbersome and confusing document. Our reviewers in the Office of Planning and Zoning (OPZ) have been keeping notes for many years, documenting the ways in which the code is inconsistent, unclear, or out of compliance with state law.

Last August, OPZ completed a comprehensive review, organized its legislative recommendations by category, and put them out in plain language online for public review and comment. The goal was clarity and consistency.

I was concerned that once the bill was introduced, it would become a magnet for every land speculator, developer, environmental advocate, and community association to attach their land-use wish list. We knew that it would take discipline to keep the bill clean, and we thought our best shot at doing so would be with an experienced County Council that understood the problems we are addressing, rather than a new one unfamiliar with zoning law. So, after eleven months of public engagement, we shared the final bill language with stakeholders and sent the bill to the Council for introduction.

I wrote about the first hearing on the bill in this letter two weeks ago. I noted that 16 of 22 amendments had passed, and that the approach from all seven Councilmembers was constructive.

Then things changed.

We found out 24 hours before Monday’s hearing that Councilman Volke had 78 new amendments for our staff to respond to, and for his colleagues to consider. Also, there was a viral video over the weekend that said the bill would, “Change the face of Anne Arundel County,” and was being, “pushed through as fast as possible before the new administration comes in.”

By mid-day Monday there were letters coming from business owners, residents, and political operatives hoping to influence the outcome of the November 3 election. They were calling for a stop to the process.

It quickly became clear that with one major exception, the chaos was not over the changes to Article 18. Those had been published online for a year and were not controversial. The concerns were over things that have been in Article 18 for many years and were not being changed. It happened because of the way bills are always written. The new stuff is only what’s in capital letters, and the stuff in brackets is being removed or changed. I read a lot of bills, and I often have trouble understanding them. I get the confusion, and the concerns.

The exception was food trucks. Article 18 as written does not include food trucks as a permitted use. They are legal on public roads, and they are only legal on private property with a temporary use certificate. Our team wanted them to be permitted on private property for extended periods in certain zoning districts by putting them in the Zoning Code, so that they could avoid the paperwork burden of the temporary certificates.

In retrospect, I don’t believe we should have included food trucks in this bill. A separate food truck bill would have allowed for engagement from impacted parties on that topic alone. I shared a letter with the Council at Monday’s meeting suggesting its removal, but I understand that the operators want to be permitted in the zoning code, and are reluctant to wait for the next County Council to get it done. Whether it’s through this bill or a future one, we will work with the County Council and food truck operators to get them permitted.

Farmers are particularly vulnerable to zoning restrictions that limit what they can do on their farms. The social media circulating over the weekend targeted them in a way that was particularly threatening, and when I re-read the actual bill, I was able to confirm that there was nothing in it that impacted farmers. But it reminded me of something in the code that I had tried to change before my time in office.

The law requires farm operators to have zoning certificates of use to farm, but very few farms have them, and the county has not been enforcing the requirement. After consulting with staff, I got confirmation that we could align the code with actual practice by exempting farmers from the certificate of use requirement for farming, and that we could do it as an amendment to this bill.

I then called Councilwoman Leadbetter, whose district includes the most farms, and told her that if she would introduce the amendment, staff could have it ready in time for the meeting. She did so, and it passed Monday night with a unanimous vote. It’s exactly the kind of fix that is repeated throughout the bill and is needed to make our code consistent with practice.

The Volke amendments turned out to be mostly nonsensical, and very few passed. Many proposed removing definitions of terms, even though it’s the lack of definitions that makes the code understandable only to lawyers who know case law on those terms, and makes the code susceptible to manipulation by the land use attorneys that few of us can afford to hire.

One of his amendments (#65) sought to remove the language that recognizes the importance of our community-driven General Development Plan (GDP), Plan2040. This amendment was a direct request of the two associations representing development interests in the county, while local community associations have for years advocated for the GDP to be adhered to. Our GDP won the state’s Sustainable Growth Award and calls for greener, smarter, and more equitable land use. Fortunately for us, state law supports the position of our communities on this.

His amendment #66 would remove the right of entry that county staff need when approving applications by business owners for zoning certificates of use. Go figure.

And the holy grail for developers was Volke’s amendment #64, to remove the statement that the Office of Planning and Zoning administers and interprets the zoning code. He actually said that since this bill would make the code so clear, it shouldn’t need to be interpreted. Imagine a world in which developers and land speculators get to decide how the zoning code applies to their property. Or even worse, where the interpretations are all made in the courts, with lawyers getting paid to represent both sides of each argument.

I get that the very existence of zoning laws can feel like an infringement on the property rights of landowners, and that Mr. Volke has a libertarian streak. I do as well. But when an elected representative calls for the dismantling of those laws 24 hours before a meeting where they will be voted on, it’s hard to take their proposals seriously. And if you happen to be represented by that elected official, you have no opportunity to weigh in on an issue that truly would change the face of Anne Arundel County.

This is serious stuff, and every member of the County Council should take it seriously. Fortunately, a majority of our Council does.

Until next week…