Council to delay vote on village center redevelopment
Wants more time 'to get this right'
By Derek Simmonsen
dsimmonsen@patuxent.com
Posted 6/23/09
The County Council plans to delay a vote on a bill that would change the redevelopment process for Columbia’s village centers, giving residents more time to weigh in on the changes and council members time to work through a host of unresolved issues.
No formal vote was taken during a Monday work session on the bill, but council members reached a general consensus to delay a scheduled July 6 vote and hold additional work sessions on the bill.
No dates were immediately set for the next meetings, but they will occur in the county Board of Education board room, 10910 Route 108 in Ellicott City, and they will be televised, said County Council Chairwoman Mary Kay Sigaty, one of three council members who represent parts of Columbia.
Council members asked the county’s legal staff and representatives from the developer, Kimco, a host of questions Monday, ranging from the impact of private covenants on property in the village centers to whether there should be master plans for each village. Some of the questions will be forwarded to the Columbia Association and its legal staff.
“I would like to have the time to get this right,” said County Council Vice Chairwoman Jennifer Terrasa after the meeting. Last week, she held an informal brainstorming session with Sigaty and members of some of Columbia’s village boards to discuss ideas. She said she is open to the idea of holding more such sessions.
Council Bill 29, also known as Zoning Regulation Amendment 102, would allow the owner of any property within Columbia’s village centers to directly petition the county for development changes instead of going through General Growth for permission, as they must now.
Under a provision created when Columbia was founded, the property owner has to first gain the permission of The Rouse Co. for changes. After General Growth Properties bought out Rouse, it became the “gatekeeper” that must present development proposals to the county.
Kimco, which owns the bulk of commercial property in six of the village centers and has proposed the bill, said it has never been turned away by General Growth, but views the company as a competitor.
In addition to removing General Growth as the gatekeeper, the bill also defines what a village center is and lays out a procedure for approval of both major and minor development changes. In the case of major changes, a developer must hold at least two public meetings before submitting plans, and county planners will seek village board input in making their recommendations on any projects.
No formal vote was taken during a Monday work session on the bill, but council members reached a general consensus to delay a scheduled July 6 vote and hold additional work sessions on the bill.
No dates were immediately set for the next meetings, but they will occur in the county Board of Education board room, 10910 Route 108 in Ellicott City, and they will be televised, said County Council Chairwoman Mary Kay Sigaty, one of three council members who represent parts of Columbia.
Council members asked the county’s legal staff and representatives from the developer, Kimco, a host of questions Monday, ranging from the impact of private covenants on property in the village centers to whether there should be master plans for each village. Some of the questions will be forwarded to the Columbia Association and its legal staff.
“I would like to have the time to get this right,” said County Council Vice Chairwoman Jennifer Terrasa after the meeting. Last week, she held an informal brainstorming session with Sigaty and members of some of Columbia’s village boards to discuss ideas. She said she is open to the idea of holding more such sessions.
Council Bill 29, also known as Zoning Regulation Amendment 102, would allow the owner of any property within Columbia’s village centers to directly petition the county for development changes instead of going through General Growth for permission, as they must now.
Under a provision created when Columbia was founded, the property owner has to first gain the permission of The Rouse Co. for changes. After General Growth Properties bought out Rouse, it became the “gatekeeper” that must present development proposals to the county.
Kimco, which owns the bulk of commercial property in six of the village centers and has proposed the bill, said it has never been turned away by General Growth, but views the company as a competitor.
In addition to removing General Growth as the gatekeeper, the bill also defines what a village center is and lays out a procedure for approval of both major and minor development changes. In the case of major changes, a developer must hold at least two public meetings before submitting plans, and county planners will seek village board input in making their recommendations on any projects.
user comments (0)
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement