When Michael Laureno and his wife, Mary, moved in 1986 to their house, situated on 3.3 acres of Ellicott City land, they came to consider the place a type of bank account.

With a large portion of their lot undeveloped, the real estate was quite a nest egg.

Now faced with paying his daughter's college tuition, the Laurenos hope to dip into that account.

But if Michael Laureno had his druthers, he'd avoid selling a portion of his land in order to keep the dozens of beech trees on the property and the favor of his neighbors.

That's why Laureno has praised a proposal before the Howard County Council that would allow him to preserve his land while still profiting off the excess acres.

He and his wife would achieve this by selling their building rights to a developer who would apply them to land elsewhere in the county.

Through a proposed bill, council chairwoman Courtney Watson, an Ellicott City Democrat, wants to create a new land zoning designation called a "neighborhood preservation parcel" that would consist of generally small pieces of residentially-zoned land within existing neighborhoods commonly known as "infill" lots.

Watson said the new zoning category is necessary to protect established neighborhoods from shoehorned subdivisions that are out of sync with the character of their surroundings.

"We're losing the character and the integrity of our older, existing neighborhoods at a pretty fast rate," she said.

The bill would allow landowners with qualifying parcels a choice between developing their land or selling the development rights and permanently preserving their land.

A similar program has been in place for many years in an effort to protect the rural character of the western county.

Columbia residents object

However, not all who attended the hearing agreed with the proposal.

Several Columbia residents told the council that they don't want excess housing intended for other parts of the county to be unloaded in their neighborhoods.

In her bill, Watson is recommending that landowners wishing to place their land in preservation may transfer -- or in effect sell -- the development rights applicable to the preserved plot to be built on qualifying land elsewhere in the county, including more densely developed residential areas and mixed-use areas.

However, in a related proposal, Watson had recommended that Columbia's uniquely zoned land also be eligible to receive the building rights transferred from preserved parcels.

But after receiving negative feedback from several Columbia residents, Watson said at the June 16 hearing that she plans to withdraw the proposal that sought to include Columbia in the program.

Residents of the Columbia villages of Oakland Mills, Wilde Lake and Hickory Ridge testified at the hearing that they felt it would be inappropriate to include Columbia in the program.

Joan Lancos, who spoke on behalf of the Hickory Ridge Village Board, said that if the intent of Watson's proposal is to protect older communities, that Columbia -- turning 41 -- should be considered an older community in its own right.

In a separate piece of her testimony in which she spoke as an individual Columbia resident, Lancos, a former member of the county's Planning Board, said she found fault with the system of transferring building rights from one area to another.

"It moves the problem from one neighborhood to another," she said.

Watson said she originally drafted the resolution regarding Columbia's inclusion in the program because the Planning Board recommended that she do so.

County officials are preparing to review larger plans to redevelop downtown Columbia and some of the surrounding village centers.

In deciding to withdraw the resolution related to Columbia, Watson said she ultimately sided with the Columbia residents who were wary of it because their area is already in a state of flux.

The council is scheduled to vote on Watson's proposal July 7.

Council members Calvin Ball and Jennifer Terrasa said they wanted to review a map of the eligible plots of land that could receive building rights under the program, and that they also hoped to hear feedback from the residents who neighbor those sites.

---

user comments (0)