Power sharing sought on zoning
CA Board considers state bill to give Columbia a say in development
By Derek Simmonsen
dsimmonsen@patuxent.com
Posted 7/08/09
As the County Council debate on the future of Columbia’s village centers continues, some local residents have repeatedly said they want more of a say in development issues.
Columbia, however, as an unincorporated, planned community, does not actually have any formal power over its zoning.
At least not yet.
The Columbia Association Board of Directors is exploring possible state legislation that would give Columbia some authority over its zoning and planning and give its village boards a strong advisory role.
The issue is one of many the CA Board included when it approved goals for the new CA president last month.
“Quite frankly it’s early in the process,” said CA President Phillip Nelson, who became the organization’s new leader May 1. “We’re going to work with the (CA Board) committees and get a better feel for what they’d like to see.
“This would be a pretty major step.”
Zoning has been at the forefront of Columbia-related issues lately, as the County Council currently is reviewing a bill that would alter the redevelopment process within Columbia’s village centers.
In the near future, the council also is expected to take up General Growth Properties’ 30-year downtown redevelopment plan, which involves adding 5,500 new residences along with additional retail, office and hotel space.
CA has played a role in the downtown discussions as it owns Symphony Woods and property along Lake Kittamaqundi that General Growth considers likely part of any downtown revitalization. However, approval of General Growth’s overall plan rests with the county.
The county Planning and Zoning Boards, and the County Council, make land-use decisions concerning Columbia and the county has its own Department of Planning and Zoning to review plans and issue recommendations.
Giving a private entity like CA power over those matters would likely require state legislation, state and local officials say, as the county government is the only body currently authorized by the state to make those kinds of decisions.
Columbia is not entirely without power, though, as it has architectural and other covenants that can limit the uses of property within villages.
Nelson said he plans to gather input from the CA board and the various village boards, and to determine whether there are any precedents in the state for such a move. If not, Columbia may have to start from scratch in crafting a bill, he said.
CA Board Chairman Phillip Kirsch cautioned that the board has not agreed on anything at this point beyond just investigating the possibilities.
“It’s just an idea that we want to think about and look at,” Kirsch said. “It’s an information-gathering exercise.”
Bobo sees ‘possibilities’
Exercise or not, the notion of giving Columbia formal power over its zoning has support, although some local officials said they are wary of the idea.
State Del. Elizabeth Bobo, a Democrat whose district includes the oldest parts of Columbia, said she has agreed to research the issue.
“I think it has some possibilities,” Bobo said. “Columbia is in a unique situation from a land-use perspective, not just in Maryland, but across the country.”
Any local bill would first go through a public hearing before being voted on by Howard County’s state legislative delegation. Even if the delegation supports it, a bill would still need approval of both legislative houses and the governor.
Recent discussions over Columbia’s future have led some residents to believe it may be time for such a move to take place. If it was an incorporated city, Columbia would be second only to Baltimore in terms of population, according to U.S. Census figures.
“A lot of people in the community have been saying very loud and clear that Columbia needs to have a voice,” said Cynthia Coyle, vice chairwoman of the CA Board. “We’re not a city, but we’re a pretty significant portion of the population.”
The nature and extent of any zoning authority remains uncertain, as no one has even begun drafting a bill on the subject. However, some local groups have offered up possible suggestions during testimony before the County Council on village center redevelopment.
Alan Klein, who leads the advocacy group the Coalition for Columbia’s Downtown, said his group supports creating a new entity that would only review Columbia plans.
A key role of any new organization would be to replace General Growth Propeties as the “gatekeeper” that approves any redevelopment plans in Columbia.
Klein said he would settle for an advisory group.
“If Columbia is a planned community, we want not just a voice, but a say in the plan,” he said.
Support not unanimous
Not everyone believes state legislation is the way to go. CA Board member Pearl Atkinson-Stewart said CA has the expertise in zoning required to take over such duties from the county.
“I think that would be a mistake,” she said. “We elected the county officials to do their job, and what we need to do is work with them, collaborate with them. That’s what we’re lacking.”
State Del. Guy Guzzone, a Columbia Democrat who chairs the Howard County state house delegation, said he would have concerns about giving too much authority to a private entity, such as CA. Increasing village participation in the planning process is fine, but Guzzone said he would be cautious in going beyond that.
“I would have concerns,” Guzzone said. “There are ways to improve communication and input. ... If they’re looking for veto power or control over it, I’m not sure I’m ready to say that’s a good idea.”
County Council member Calvin Ball, who represents parts of Columbia, said he wants to learn more about the logistics and the rationale behind seeking state legislation. A lot of questions would have to be answered, he said.
“If the entity is appointed, who appoints them and what powers do the citizens have if they don’t reflect their views?” Ball said.
Columbia, however, as an unincorporated, planned community, does not actually have any formal power over its zoning.
At least not yet.
The Columbia Association Board of Directors is exploring possible state legislation that would give Columbia some authority over its zoning and planning and give its village boards a strong advisory role.
The issue is one of many the CA Board included when it approved goals for the new CA president last month.
“Quite frankly it’s early in the process,” said CA President Phillip Nelson, who became the organization’s new leader May 1. “We’re going to work with the (CA Board) committees and get a better feel for what they’d like to see.
“This would be a pretty major step.”
Zoning has been at the forefront of Columbia-related issues lately, as the County Council currently is reviewing a bill that would alter the redevelopment process within Columbia’s village centers.
In the near future, the council also is expected to take up General Growth Properties’ 30-year downtown redevelopment plan, which involves adding 5,500 new residences along with additional retail, office and hotel space.
CA has played a role in the downtown discussions as it owns Symphony Woods and property along Lake Kittamaqundi that General Growth considers likely part of any downtown revitalization. However, approval of General Growth’s overall plan rests with the county.
The county Planning and Zoning Boards, and the County Council, make land-use decisions concerning Columbia and the county has its own Department of Planning and Zoning to review plans and issue recommendations.
Giving a private entity like CA power over those matters would likely require state legislation, state and local officials say, as the county government is the only body currently authorized by the state to make those kinds of decisions.
Columbia is not entirely without power, though, as it has architectural and other covenants that can limit the uses of property within villages.
Nelson said he plans to gather input from the CA board and the various village boards, and to determine whether there are any precedents in the state for such a move. If not, Columbia may have to start from scratch in crafting a bill, he said.
CA Board Chairman Phillip Kirsch cautioned that the board has not agreed on anything at this point beyond just investigating the possibilities.
“It’s just an idea that we want to think about and look at,” Kirsch said. “It’s an information-gathering exercise.”
Bobo sees ‘possibilities’
Exercise or not, the notion of giving Columbia formal power over its zoning has support, although some local officials said they are wary of the idea.
State Del. Elizabeth Bobo, a Democrat whose district includes the oldest parts of Columbia, said she has agreed to research the issue.
“I think it has some possibilities,” Bobo said. “Columbia is in a unique situation from a land-use perspective, not just in Maryland, but across the country.”
Any local bill would first go through a public hearing before being voted on by Howard County’s state legislative delegation. Even if the delegation supports it, a bill would still need approval of both legislative houses and the governor.
Recent discussions over Columbia’s future have led some residents to believe it may be time for such a move to take place. If it was an incorporated city, Columbia would be second only to Baltimore in terms of population, according to U.S. Census figures.
“A lot of people in the community have been saying very loud and clear that Columbia needs to have a voice,” said Cynthia Coyle, vice chairwoman of the CA Board. “We’re not a city, but we’re a pretty significant portion of the population.”
The nature and extent of any zoning authority remains uncertain, as no one has even begun drafting a bill on the subject. However, some local groups have offered up possible suggestions during testimony before the County Council on village center redevelopment.
Alan Klein, who leads the advocacy group the Coalition for Columbia’s Downtown, said his group supports creating a new entity that would only review Columbia plans.
A key role of any new organization would be to replace General Growth Propeties as the “gatekeeper” that approves any redevelopment plans in Columbia.
Klein said he would settle for an advisory group.
“If Columbia is a planned community, we want not just a voice, but a say in the plan,” he said.
Support not unanimous
Not everyone believes state legislation is the way to go. CA Board member Pearl Atkinson-Stewart said CA has the expertise in zoning required to take over such duties from the county.
“I think that would be a mistake,” she said. “We elected the county officials to do their job, and what we need to do is work with them, collaborate with them. That’s what we’re lacking.”
State Del. Guy Guzzone, a Columbia Democrat who chairs the Howard County state house delegation, said he would have concerns about giving too much authority to a private entity, such as CA. Increasing village participation in the planning process is fine, but Guzzone said he would be cautious in going beyond that.
“I would have concerns,” Guzzone said. “There are ways to improve communication and input. ... If they’re looking for veto power or control over it, I’m not sure I’m ready to say that’s a good idea.”
County Council member Calvin Ball, who represents parts of Columbia, said he wants to learn more about the logistics and the rationale behind seeking state legislation. A lot of questions would have to be answered, he said.
“If the entity is appointed, who appoints them and what powers do the citizens have if they don’t reflect their views?” Ball said.
user comments (2)
user independent says...
A strong advisory role is the same as a strong weak role. And watch the campaign funds going to those who are against resident or new private entity power in land use decisions (Guzzone), as often the money links directly back to favorable decisions which are then subsidized by taxpayers. Alan Klein's group has several hundred members and he regularly communicates, and represents their views, acting to represent the views of a very large voter bloc. It will be interesting to see how this affects election time in 2010, as technology impact on local elections grows.
Posted 11:57 AM, 07.08.09 | Permalink
user tom3 says...
I don't know if I am for this or not. But, it is very late in the game to make this proposal. Who is going to pay for operating this entity? CA, County, Villages? How much will it cost? Why would this be better than what is in CB29? None of these questions seemed to be answered.
Posted 11:16 AM, 07.10.09 | Permalink
Advertisement
most popular
- read
- emailed
Advertisement
Advertisement