AND SUBSEQUENT UPDATES
Partner groups -- Concerned Citizens of Clinton for Sustainable Development, Protect Bryans Road, Calvert Manor
We are working with these groups to share information and coordinate legislative efforts. We will work with as many more groups as possible to shrengthen our our collective position
Heron Creek -- The developer has been granted approval with provisions, so we are waiting to see whether he meets those provisions in the time allotted. (189 days, I think.) Calvert Manor is considering having an independent noise study conducted. Francis suggested including airplane and helicopter noise in that study; it is considerable here. Several people were worried about the appearance of the noise barriers that will come with this development. Craig Rovelstadt told me that they will not be the beltway kind (those cost about $1 million / mile), but will be unobtrusive and look like ordinary backyard fencing.
Timber Highlands II -- THIS PERMIT WAS DENIED!!!!!
Timber Highlands II was killed by CB-89 [See below] and because the developer had not met all of the provisions required by the County after his last review. As of April 8,
1. An approved Tree Conservation Plan had not been submitted
2. Not all of the lots had perc'ed
3. In order to meet tree conservation requirements, the plans showed too-tiny backyards. (Reviewers want to see at least 40 ft. from the back of the house dedicated to yard space so that homeowners don't start cutting down "conserved" trees as soon as no one's looking)
4. 1 or 2 houses show trees within 1-2 feet of their corners. It is not physically possible to build a house while preserving trees 2 feet away
5. Berniece Lane would have been the only access road to Timber Highlands II (62 houses.) It is a 50 ft. right-of-way, and would have been expanded slightly to 60 ft.
6. The plans still showed private wells. So the County towed the line and refused to bring in public water. This, of course, is a catch-22 for those of us on well water: bringing public water means bringing more development, but 71 new houses on wells puts a lot of stress on our existing wells. Not as much as the pending Bryan's Road debacle�
7. Off-site tree conservation mitigation was not allowed. (The developer couldn't cut down more trees here by promising to hug some somewhere else)
Manokeek / Vincent Property -- The Hearing Examiner who heard this rezoning application asked the Moyaone Association Board for an opinion on the matter. (The Mumas, the developer couple, want the property to reroute a road through and develop, to some degree, commercially. They admitted to their intentions to destroy the wetlands on this property through the re-routing.) The Board voted against the rezoning, but the Examiner asked that the membership take a vote. That occurred on May 14 at the Association�s semiannual meeting. The membership voted to uphold the Board's opposition to the rezoning from residential to MTX (mixed commercial and residential use.) It is encouraging that the Examiner took the matter seriously and solicited actual input from the broader community. She was not required to do this.
CB-89 and HB-1129 -- CB-89-2004 is the PGC law that no new developments can receive final approval after Nov. 16, 2004, if adequate public facilities do not exist (police and fire/EMS coverage). NO PART OF THE COUNTY MEETS THE ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS. It's a little frightening. Developers are apparently withdrawing their applications rather than be denied. They are probably just waiting to resubmit them.
Despite our efforts to the contrary, Gov. Ehrlich signed HB-1129 as expected. It was introduced by the entire PG delegation (for us that is Miller, Proctor, and Vallario.) The law is an enabling law that will allow the PG County Council to decide to let developers pay a $6,000 / house surcharge and keep throwing up developments that are known to be unsafe due to inadequate coverage. The Council has until July 1 to pass a bill that would take advantage of HB-1129's largesse.
State legislators introduced HB-1129 on behalf of the County Council. As introduced, it called for an $8,000/house surcharge to be paid by developers and still required them to pass an adequate public facilities test. Unfortunatelly, the law as it passed will enable the County to collect $6,000/house (only $2,000 in the developed tier) and ignore the test. The Council is working with its lawyers right now to determine whether they will be bound by the whole law if they decide to collect surcharges. (Must they also ignore public facilities tests ?)
The mutation of this bill in session shows that our state representatives (indications are that Mike Miller had a heavy hand here) are to blame for its heinous proposal, not the County Council. As introduced, the bill was a great one. As it sits now, it is an abomination.
CONTACT THE COUNTY COUNCIL NOW AND TELL THEM THAT YOU OPPOSE HB-1129, AND WANT CB-89-2004 TO BE PRESERVED!
If the Council decided to enact HB-1129, our membership voted to launch a referendum drive to put the issue before voters in the 2006 elections. Members also voted to add a provision calling for better notice of hearings (bigger, clearer signs; letters to homeowners in a range of developments, not just those with adjoining properties; and hearings at a time of day when working people can attend them.)
As elections approach, we need to continue researching candidates' records and consider whether we should actively campaign for or against any as a group.
Sources reveal that Marilynn Bland's seat is the most precarious on the Council. Tom Hendershot will be supporting his wife to replace him. The other Council members have unified to support each other. They are already attending each other's fundraisers, etc.
Rushern Baker will likely face off against County Executive Jack Johnson. Baker has made some encouraging managed growth moves (introducing a 1-yr. moratorium on building in the rural tier, for example) but he, like virtually every other politician in our area, is getting a lot of support from developers.