|
Mixed-Use zoning legislation
|
Joyce Dowling
|
Jun 20, 2009 10:57 PDT
|
This is forwarded from activist Lourene with permission. She's done a
lot of research and provided specific information, whereas I didn't
find time to read the Mixed-Use Legislation. Apparently the hearing
already took place on June 15, but hopefully amendments could still
be made:
| | ...the proposed Form-based Code Mixed-use Zone legislation (MUZ
legislation), now before the County Council. The MUZ legislation
allows for the creation of mixed-use zones throughout much of the
County. Though many elements of this
legislation are good and could facilitate transit-oriented development,
other elements are problematic.
Under the guise of enabling "certainty", the MUZ legislation removes the
right of the public (including residents, civic associations, environmental
organizations, and municipalities) to have input on site plans. It also
removes their right to appeal to the Planning Board and to the County
Council.
And the County/District Council will lose oversight power. Most power will
be vested in the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
(MNCPPC) Planning Director.
Though the claimed goal of the MUZ legislation is to create transit-oriented
development, the MUZ legislation does not mandate that these large
developments be located at or near transit centers. Potentially all of the
County's 26 designated centers and 7 corridors would be eligible for these
fast-tracked large developments. And the MUZ legislation does not prohibit
non-transit-oriented development from being located at transit centers.
Once a site plan is approved (with no public comment or review by elected
officials), deviations of up to 10% for building height, architectural
materials, and parking spaces can be granted at the staff level. Significant
modifications to the site plan can be granted by the Planning Director AFTER
site plan approval.
The MUZ legislation allows the MNCPPC staff to deviate from the Landscape
Manual (which governs buffering and screening) and also changes the common
law definition of "accessory use" potentially enabling developers to add
unauthorized uses to their properties without even going through the site
plan amendment process. Text amendments are also authorized.
In addition, though repeatedly requested to do so, the MNCPPC has refused to
incorporate into the legislation a MANDATE to protect residential zones from
adverse impacts, relating to traffic, noise, lights, smells, trash, or
shadows, caused by adjacent mixed-use zones.
And while the site plan applications must submit a LEED Scorecard, and are
exhorted to meet LEED standards, the legislation does not require the
buildings to actually be LEED certified. Nor does the MUZ legislation
prohibit adverse environmental impacts.
Even if a form-based code and a mixed-use zone are things we might like,
this legislation has great need of amendment before being made law. We need
to convince the County Council members of this.
Please email ALL the Council members and ask them to amend this legislation
to address these concerns!
************************
Sample email: Please edit this email to reflect your own opinions.
************************
Subject: Amend the MUZ Legislation!
Honorable Members of the Prince George's County Council:
I am very concerned about Section 27A, the proposed legislation to adopt a
form-based code and create new mixed-use zones throughout much of the County
(MUZ legislation). While this legislation has the potential to bring the
benefits of transit-oriented mixed-use developments to the County, it is
flawed and needs to be amended.
Though this legislation is touted as a means to bring "certainty" to
developers, it is not being used to provide "certainty" to municipalities,
civic associations, environmental groups, and nearby residents. "Certainty"
is used as a basis to eliminate public participation in the process, but
"certainty" is not being used to eliminate deviations, variances, and text
amendments.
The MUZ legislation needs to be amended to ensure environmental protection,
to ensure preservation of family-oriented neighborhoods, and to ensure that
proposed developments are truly transit-oriented developments.
The MUZ legislation needs to be amended to incorporate the same basic
administrative procedures that federal and state government agencies have
been using for years to effectively ensure that the public has a "voice" in
the process (e.g., input, consideration, appeal, and reopening). The public
"voice" will serve to alert the Planning Director and Planning Board of
issues that unscrupulous developers and landowners may not alert them to.
The MUZ legislation needs to be amended to ensure that the District Council
remains in control, to ensure that the Planning Director and Planning Board
will be responsive to concerns raised by the public, to ensure that the
Planning Director and Planning Board do not abuse the powers granted to
them, and to ensure that the Planning Director and Planning Board do not
exercise powers that they don't even legally have. The District Council's
oversight is crucial!
Proposed Amendments:
(1) (a) Mandate LEED certification of all buildings.
(b) Prohibit adverse impacts on the environment.
(c) Prohibit adverse impacts on residents in adjacent single-family
detached residential zones.
(d) Identify which of the County's 26 designated centers and 7
designated corridors that 27A will apply to.
(e) Mandate that mixed-use developments be located at or near
transit centers.
(f) Prohibit non-transit-oriented developments from being located at
or near transit centers.
(2) Incorporate the right of municipalities, civic associations,
environmental groups, and nearby residents:
(a) to have input on site plans, as well as regulating plans, before
the Planning Director, and have their concerns addressed,
(b) to have the Planning Director reopen and reconsider site plans
and regulating plans to address unaddressed and unanticipated
adverse impacts,
(c) to have the right to appeal site plans and deviations to the
Planning Board, and
(d) to have the right to appeal site plans, deviations, and
variances to the District Council.
(3) (a) Preserve the right of the District Council to review, and have
ultimate decision-making authority over, site plans, deviations, and
variances.
(b) Eliminate the authorization of text amendments.
(c) Eliminate the codification/definition of "accessory use".
Please amend the MUZ legislation to ensure that it will result in mixed-use
development that will be good for the residents of Prince George's County!
Sincerely,
************************
Email addresses:
Marilynn Bland <MMBl-@co.pg.md.us>
Sam Dean <SHD-@co.pg.md.us>
Eric Olson <EOl-@co.pg.md.us>
Tom Dernoga <TEDer-@co.pg.md.us>
Camille Exum <CAE-@co.pg.md.us>
Will Campos <WACa-@co.pg.md.us>
Ingrid Turner <IMTu-@co.pg.md.us>
Andrea Harrison <ACHar-@co.pg.md.us>
Tony Knotts <TKno-@co.pg.md.us>
Clerk of the County Council <clerkofth-@co.pg.md.us>
************************
For information on the Form-based Code Mixed-use legislation, see:
http://www.pgplanning.org/Projects/Ongoing_Plans_and_Projects/Community_Plan
s/Mixed-Use.htm
************************
Please forward this email to other civic activists!
|
--
Sincerely,
Joyce Dowling
Developer, Prince Georgians Care http://www.PGCares.com
Community discussion & news:
http://community.livejournal.com/prince_georges/
Read all the top county bloggers:
http://www.pgcares.com/blog-news.html
If I've helped you at all, please Pay It Forward (X3)
|
|
 |
|
