Alderman Arnett on SAYC and P&Z

There will be a City Council Meeting tonight, 9 January at 7 PM in Council Chambers.  (The Agenda can be found in SHARE:  Community Announcements.)  In Alderman Arnett’s announcement of the meeting, he also took the opportunity to bring us all up to date on his view of what is going on with P&Z and SAYC.  Here’s Ross:

 A funny (not) thing happened on the way to the Planning Commission meeting to consider the SAYC redevelopment plans – the rules changed! Actually, the rules didn’t change the long existing practice changed.

Many of you have attended meetings that I’ve held at the Eastport Fire Station to discuss the South Annapolis Yacht Center. At those meetings the developer, Bret Anderson and his team has presented their site design plans, including plans for the two marinas on the property that combines the old Sarles and Petrini Marinas. At those meetings I have assured all of you that you will get another bite of the apple before the Planning Commission and before the Port Wardens. It appears that I was only partially correct. You can still go to the hearing to be held by the Port Wardens at some future point to opine on the reconfiguration of the marina. And there will be one more chance to be heard by the Planning Commission, but the scope of your input will be limited, as described next.

Contrary to past practice, but according to the City Code, the Planning Commission only has jurisdiction over site design matters in the case of Planned Development projects. They do have jurisdiction over the final plat for major site design cases and they will have that with SAYC. However, it is the Director of Planning and Zoning who has final say on all site design matters other than those for Planned Developments.

What does this mean to those of you who have questions and concerns about the site design issues regarding SAYC? I believe the comment period is closed, but I think that Planning and Zoning (P&Z) will still be receptive to your input if you have issues with the proposed project. But they must be given soon as I believe a final decision is about to be made.

There will be one more meeting before the Planning Commission after the site design is approved by the P&Z Director, and that will be to review and approve the final plat. That meeting will be open to the public for comment. The final plat does have some impact on the site design, but only to the extent that the placement of the buildings, streets, parking lots, and tree placement affect the site design plan.

If you still have problems with the final approved site design plan, your next step will be to file an appeal with the City Board of Appeals within 30 days after the final decision is made. There is a filing fee. To appeal one must have standing, i.e., live within 200 feet of the SAYC project, or have provided testimony or comment to P&Z, or can show some financial interest affected by the final decision. Those still unsatisfied after the Appeals Board, must go to the Circuit Court.

I understand that the planned redevelopment at the Eastport Shopping Center is scheduled for a March hearing before the Planning Commission. That project is a Planned Development, so the Planning Commission will have purview over site design and plat issues.

I understand that this is a complicated message. You have my contact information at the end of this message. Please feel free to call or email me if you have further questions.

As always, you can call me [443 745-2901] or send an email to [EastportRoss@aol.com] if you have questions or concerns.

 

 

CORRECTION!!!

The Planning Commission meeting in Alderman Ross Arnett’s reminder (posted 2 January) is for the correct date, 5 January, (tomorrow) but the reminder states that it is Wednesday, in other words, today.

Please be there tomorrow in Council chambers at 7 PM to hear the latest on SAYC and, if desired, to give testimony.  This is a chance to be heard and influence our future!

Breaking Point?

All of  the issues discussed at the 8 December 2016 Town Hall meeting were complex, and had both short and long-term implications.  (My initial post concerning this Town Hall is dated 13 December 2016 and dealt primarily with Public Safety.)  Other issues on the informal agenda concerned Planning and Zoning, updates on existing project proposals, hints about proposals lurking in the wings, and the issue of limits on growth.  I consider all the issues, from P&Z to limits on growth, to be linked and to speak directly to the future of our community and the lifestyle we all looked forward to when we moved here.

Every one of these issues lends itself to significant examination and intense community input.  More importantly, they need to be examined through the single lens of “Who should determine the future of our community?”  Should it be the bureaucrats at P&Z?  The developers whose concerns are measured in $$$ for them and their investors?  Elected officials who, for the most part, see the future in terms of their next election?  (Yes, there are a few exceptions.  You decide who they are, and who they are not.)

When Alderman Ross Arnett brought up the surprise information about a potential project, Watergate Point, that is intended to double the density of the existing site, the meeting attendees raised all sorts of question.  Ross had been given only a cursory briefing.  As a  result, he did not have a lot of answers.  But he did note that this could be the project that brings our community to the breaking point…  We will have exceeded the limits of growth.  Now, I don’t know about you, but to me that sounds SERIOUS.

Having identified the concern that our community might be on the brink, who do we look to, to bring us into the discussion of future courses of action that need to be considered?  Are we, the community, the tax payers, the electorate really given a voice in our future?  Or are we just a ‘tick mark’ that our input was received?  How can we most effectively initiate, and help decide our future?

Clearly, this breaking point acknowledged by our Alderman has to be taken at face value.  If you listen you can hear the bells tolling the countdown towards a future dangerous to our community and certainly not of our choosing.

Another concern indicated by Ross is that the P&Z cards are stacked against us.  P&Z may be well-meaning, in their intent to support development as a means to expand the property tax base.  They look at each project, but are not at all effective in examining the cumulative impact of multiple projects over time.  Moreover, they are too reliant on input from consultants paid for by project proponents.

P&Z has limited resources, while developers seem to have deep pockets and always appear to overwhelm the private entities who try to do the right thing.  One of the techniques used by developers to work the system and give P&Z the appearance of being reasonable is the use of Planned Unit Development (PUD).

As Ross described it, PUD is a way developers get P&Z to stretch, waive, and otherwise weaken and distort the intent of existing codes.  There appear to be no current means to constrain P&Z and force strict adherence to codes.  Result?  We, the public, are victimized.  The comprehensive plans that should be the basis for developing and updating codes either do not exist or are inconsistent.  The link between legislation and regulation appears to be fraught with problems.  This is a recognized flaw in our government.  So who needs to answer for this to us?  Is it the Mayor, who should be providing leadership?  The City Council?  Of course, it is ‘yes’ to both.  But as a practical matter, who is actually looking out for our interests?

Back to the matter of limits of growth:  I have often advocated for the use of the tools of technology to help inform the community, and bring the community into informed discussions about the future. Use of simulation and modeling to look at ‘what ifs’ and ‘impact of courses of action’ should help energize more of the community.  The relatively small number of citizens who spend their own time to attend meetings, to advise policy makers and generally help spread the word need to serve as the posse to bring more members of the community into the process.

Instead, what are we actually facing?  Ross stated almost as an OBTW that the County has given guidance that Comprehensive Planning should/will be conducted on a less frequent basis.

WHAT?

Is this a budgeting move or just a badly thought out way forward?

In this time of great  change resulting from overdevelopment and environmental pressures, we should be more committed to strategic matters.  We must fully deploy the technology tools that jurisdictions with competent leaderships are already using to help identify and understand issues and opportunities.  To do less is unreasonable.  We cannot just stand on the sidelines and keep score and rate our politicians.  We need to actively help them shape their efforts on our behalf and tackle the hard stuff.

Not for them.  For us.

The Town Hall concluded with a lively discussion about where public participation in P&Z and/or project presentation has the most impact.  There were informed and enthusiastic proponents at both ends.  Some stated that impact can only be realized at the P&Z level, and if P&Z regulations are defined, then  the future is well-structured and must comply with those regulations.  The other position was that you can have just as much impact when speaking to the merits or lack of same when specific projects are initially proposed.

For me, both are necessary.  It is crucial to be involved in the continuum and in the need to continuously speak to the strategic overlapping impact of multiple projects.  We need to ensure that the process is forced to consider secondary and  tertiary implications of the projects under consideration, and those expected to be exposed in the near future.

If we fail to stay involved and hold our elected officials accountable, then we have no basis to complain about the future of our community.  The decision we each must make is to be part of the solution.  That is the only decision that makes sense.  We cannot just assume someone else will look out for our interests.

If not you, then who?

Please Remember

A reminder from Alderman Arnett, on SAYC

Ward 8 and Friends

On Wednesday 5 January at 7 PM the Planning Commission will hear the plans for the South Annapolis Yacht Center development. This is your opportunity to hear and be heard. The current and official version of the plans are available for review in the Department of Planning and Zoning office on the third floor of 145 Gorman Street (entrance by the lower level of the Hillman Garage).

Ross