Zoning Board

Exhibiting bipartisan cooperation in an election season, the Howard County Council has approved a package of four zoning reform bills designed to make it easier for citizens to participate in zoning cases. The primary bill would authorize the Zoning Board to suggest voluntary mediation in deciding on development plans for mixed-use or seniors projects -- not for decisions on whether a zoning change is legally justified. The others would require larger, two-sided signs placed on land where development is proposed, to make meetings about development more convenient to attend and to give the public at least two weeks to examine technical reports submitted to the Planning Board or the Zoning Board.

Mediation would not be used to determine whether parcels of land should be rezoned, according to amendments prepared for a package of zoning reform bills by Democrats and a Republican on the Howard County Council. A vote on the four bills is due tomorrow, the council's final meeting before the annual monthlong August hiatus. Other amendments would ensure that residents have more time to introduce information to rebut developers, and to study data submitted to the planning or zoning boards.

Democrats on the Howard County Council plan revisions to their package of four zoning reform bills after hearing a barrage of criticism -- and some praise -- at this week's public hearing on the measures. "We're going to take the feedback and make them better," said east Columbia Democrat Calvin Ball, who, with Councilmen Guy Guzzone and Ken Ulman, will work on amendments to the bills before the July 31 voting session. Added Ulman, a west Columbia Democrat: "We'll work through potential changes."

Howard County Council Democrats have submitted a package of four zoning bills they say will help residents participate more effectively in land-use changes and make Zoning Board cases less contentious through the use of voluntary mediation in some cases. But the package is getting a cool reception from some in an election year when development resentment is a major issue and two council members are vying for the county executive's job. "I believe that because it's an election year doesn't mean I should stop doing my job," said Councilman Ken Ulman, a west Columbia Democrat and a co-sponsor who is running for county executive.

Mary Jane Daniels and her husband wanted to relocate, so they put their villa on the market. The first weekend, they had three prospective buyers, but none submitted a contract. Weeks went by, then months. The problem was not the condition of their home, its location or the asking price. The problem was one over which the Elkridge couple had no control: public perception. They lived in Rockburn Woods, a 21-villa development completed in 1994. But that is when the county officially referred to Rockburn - and other developments like it - as "housing for elderly" and restricted residency to people at least 60 years old. Today, the politically correct phrase is "age-restricted" housing, and the starting point is five years younger.

It seems like such a simple question: What are the boundaries for public water and sewer services? There is no absence of answers, but, amazingly, there is sharp disagreement as to whether there is an irrefutable one. And, even more astonishingly, the quest for the one, unassailable answer has dogged Howard County for at least six years. A lot is at stake: The ability of a property owner to sell his land for a premium, a proposed multimillion-dollar housing development, the character of the largely rural western region of the county and the integrity of top county officials and their departments.

County Council candidates don't get as much publicity as those running for county executive, but their views are important, especially for land use, since the council makes zoning law and, as the county zoning board, decides specific cases. In fact, no topic appears more important to county voters, especially in older neighborhoods where it seems to residents that every odd lot and hillside is being developed for housing, despite county government figures showing a drastic reduction in homebuilding since the 1990s.

Tomorrow Board of Zoning Appeals -- The hearing examiner will hear case BA 559-D (Joel Broida, Lloyd Knowles, Stephen Meskin, JoAnn Stolley), originally scheduled for June 5 and postponed, at 10 a.m.; BA 06-018V (Michael and Rebecca Ankrom) at 3 p.m.; and BA 06-019V (Ariana W. Arnold) at 4 p.m.; all in the Ellicott Room, George Howard Building, 3430 Court House Drive, Ellicott City. Tuesday Alcoholic Beverage Hearing Board -- Will hear cases at 6:30 p.m. in the Banneker Room, George Howard Building, 3430 Court House Drive, Ellicott City.

Having succeeded in throwing a year's worth of land use planning into limbo, Angela Beltram, community activist and former elected and appointed official, is eyeing another prize: overhauling the county's zoning process. While both efforts target zoning, the intended results are distinctly different. Beltram led an effort that placed a referendum on the November ballot that challenges hundreds of rezoning cases approved last year in what is commonly referred to as Comp Lite. Now she and supporters believe it is time to make fundamental changes in how zoning matters are decided.

In an unexpected move, opponents of the proposed expansion of the Turf Valley luxury planned community have launched a two-pronged attack aimed at halting the multimillion-dollar development in western Ellicott City. First, they filed an appeal to the Planning Board's approval of the expansion. But they have also filed a lawsuit in Circuit Court, seeking an emergency injunction against the project. In a larger sense, the lawsuit challenges the county's fundamental regulations and procedures governing the 800-acre project.