Consensus appears elusive as Howard County Council members prepare for Monday night's public hearing on changes to a complex bill on redevelopment of Columbia's village centers.
After a nearly three-hour work session last week at school board headquarters, issues such as parking, affordable housing and village center boundaries were unresolved, and at least one member appeared uncertain of how the bill addresses basic goals.
No further discussions were scheduled before the 7:30 p.m. hearing. The council is to discuss the bill once more, on July 27, before a vote July 30.
Instead of winnowing a list of issues Monday, the discussion ranged far and wide, mostly because of questions from Courtney Watson, an Ellicott City Democrat.
"At this point, we really need to work on the broader issues," she said at the session's start.
She expressed concern that latitude in the redevelopment process that would be created under the bill could hurt laudable qualities of the planned town and requested recommendations from county planners on issues such as affordable housing.
Other council members and planning director Marsha McLaughlin noted that the bill would enable owners of property in village centers to apply directly to the county for zoning changes that would allow major redevelopment such as added housing without going through General Growth Properties. Since Columbia was founded in 1967, such zoning requests had to go through the town's master developer.
At the same time, supporters say, the measure would keep residents better informed about village center redevelopment and enable them to have more say about what is approved.
"It's a flexible vision that could apply to different villages," said Calvin Ball, an East Columbia Democrat who represents Long Reach and Oakland Mills.
"One of the most striking things I've heard is that each village sees itself as an individual. It's important to come up with criteria that can be used for all of them," said council Chairwoman Mary Kay Sigaty, a West Columbia Democrat whose district includes four of the centers.
McLaughlin said the process would assume the role performed by General Growth and, before that, the Rouse Co., as a gatekeeper for all changes to the neighborhood residential centers.
"It gives the zoning board a tremendous amount of discretion to say 'yes' or 'no,' " she said, warning against setting density and height limits that would then become goals for developers.
