I think letters to the Mayor are not where to go with this one. I think this is more on the line of permits, P&Z, and what about getting the Alderman involved.
Month: October 2017
Letter to Mayor from Concerned Resident
Dear Mayor Pantelides,
We were generally informed that an AYC construction project is planned to start sometime, but have no idea what the heck is going on.
The only communication from the AYC developer was a few windshield notices on street-parked cars, warning that demolition of four houses was going to take place 23-27 October, 2017. No notices were posted on cars parked in condo parking lots. Many of those lucky cars did not share their notices with others.
After not being able to park on Burnside Street for three days with no visible work at the worksite, they did manage to scrape away a tiny part of the front yards of the four houses. On 26 October, a piece of paper was taped to the first (heading down Burnside) of many cones with the word “Fencing” hand-written on it. Two days later an identical piece of paper with the word, “Construction” written on it replaced the “Fencing” paper. There are no visibly posted permits on Burnside, and no notices were sent to residents, like BG&E was able to do when they cut power for half a day.
Now, we have large cement blocks in the roadway on Burnside, with the cones pushed further into the street, preventing parking on one side of the road, as well as blocking the sidewalk, day and night, not just during working hours. The fence could easily have been placed on the sidewalk, which makes some residents think AYC plans to remove the sidewalk in addition to cutting down the many trees on the properties.
We have been given no information how long this is going to go on, the scheduled timetable of events, all of which which makes it difficult for us to plan. When the weather gets worse, walking the entire length of Burnside street to get to our cars will not be fun and may even become hazardous.
Is there any way you can persuade the AYC to keep Burnside residents informed, by mail, e-mail, or clearly posted signs?
Thank you in advance for any help you can provide.
Confirmation – Planning and Zoning Needs to be Addressed
We have been focused for quite some time on the need to update our zoning process and codes. Our politicians seem to have finally come to that obvious conclusion. Even though they are a day late and a dollar short, at least it is on the agenda.
As we have noted, this is too important to leave to politicians since many options are closed and great damage may be done based on the projects that have been approved and are underway. The results of these projects already impact our quality of life and our ability to address the limits of traditional growth. This is not a new position for us. We have discussed it in various forms, for example our March 2016 post “Standing Up For The Community.”
Once the basics of planning and zoning have been set in place, and the development chess pieces are locked in, the outcome is inevitable. Why is the community then at a disadvantage? Because, unlike the project proponents, we are in unfamiliar territory. The developers, their lawyers and consultants, deal with planning and zoning, public policy, regulatory tools and the legislative process all the time. It’s what they do. They have no vested interest in our environment or in us, as residents. Their interest is in making a profit.
We, the community, need a community-friendly tool that informs us about the elements of these processes and lets us know when and how to be involved at the stages where we can make a difference. In effect, we need an early warning system.
In order to preserve and protect Eastport we need to involve ourselves in this process early and often. We need to understand the elements that constitute our community as a whole, as well as the elements of family and neighborhood that make Eastport unique and worthy of protection. One of those elements is Eastport’s diversity. Interestingly, the turnout at the town halls does not reflect that diversity.
So here’s a new additional challenge: How can we define our community or protect that community if we don’t have representation from the whole community?
The AYC Project – Now it Begins
We have received no official updated notification on the AYC project actually starting beyond a few notices, on some windshields, concerning AYC possibly beginning to tear down the houses they own on Burnside as early as today, October 23 through Friday, October 27.
Is this failure of communication based on the AYC Primer on How to Be a Good Neighbor? On How to Win Friends? Don’t think so!
Also, there is the possibility of disturbing rats, bats, mice, ants, termites, and roaches, who may suddenly be looking for the closest new home along with the possibility of dirt & dust, mold spores, asbestos, and lead paint being put into the air.
Who is out there protecting us?
Update on Eastport Shopping Center process
From Alderman Ross Arnett:
The Board of Appeals met in closed session on 18 October to review with their attorney adviser Fred Sussman how they will proceed with the Eastport Shopping Center density calculation methodology appeals. Below is an accounting of the procedures to be followed for the hearing on Wednesday 8 November at 7 PM in City Council Chambers. As you will see, the Board will only be hearing motions that evening and, if needed, the next evening 9 November at the same time and place.
The Board will not be hearing the appeal of Planning and Zoning’s denial of a shared parking permit request from the owners of Adam’s Ribs that would allow more seats for a new restaurant on Fourth Street.
In a message to all attorneys for the appellants Mr. Sussman writes:
Following my consultation with the Board of Appeals last night the Board asked me to communicate the following to you on behalf of the Board:
- The three appeals will not be consolidated, but the Board will conduct a joint hearing on the three appeals. Each case will retain its separate case number and will retain its own identity.
- Motions to Dismiss and any other preliminary motions must be filed with the Board, c/o the Department of Planning and Zoning, by close of business on October 25, 2017. Because of the compressed time frame in which we’re working counsel also must provide electronic copies of all Motions to me and to all other counsel.
- Responses to preliminary motions must be filed with the Board, c/o the Department of Planning and Zoning, by close of business on November 3, 2017. Counsel also must provide electronic copies of all responses to me and to all other counsel.
- The Board will conduct a hearing on all motions at 7:30 p.m., on November 8, 2017.
- Argument on the motions will be heard in the order that the motions were filed. Mr. Hyatt filed the first motion so he will be heard first. The proponents of any additional motions will be heard in the order that additional motions are filed.
- After all motions have been presented each counsel will have the opportunity to respond to all other Motions in the order in which the motions were presented.
- After all responses have been presented each counsel will have the opportunity to make a brief rebuttal or closing argument.
- The Board will have reviewed all motions and responses prior to the hearing. Therefore, each counsel will have a total of 30 minutes for presentation of his Motion(s), response to other Motions, and rebuttal or closing argument. Counsel may apportion his 30 minutes as counsel deems appropriate. Prior to commencement of the hearing counsel will provide his time apportionment to the Chair of the Board.
- The Board expects the Planning and Zoning Director to provide his views on any motions and, particularly, to the issue raised by Mr. Hyatt as to whether the Director’s July 14, 2017, Findings is a decision subject to appeal. The Board reserves the right to question the Planning and Zoning Director as necessary to assist in its understanding of the Findings as relates to the motions.
- No public testimony or comment will be taken on the motions.
- The Board will convene at 6:30 p.m. on November 9 in closed session to consult with me to obtain legal advice on the motions. At or about 7:30 p.m. the Board expects to convene in open session to deliberate on the motions. Deliberations may be continued if the Board deems that necessary. Following deliberations the Board will prepare a written decision.
- If the appeals are not dismissed in their entireties and one or more appeals will proceed to a hearing on the merits, the Board will set a date or dates for a hearing on the merits of any remaining appeals after the Board issues its written decision. It is unlikely that any hearing on the merits will take place until 2018, and any hearing date will be at least 30 days from the date of a written decision.
- If one or more appeals proceeds to a hearing on the merits the Board will formulate a protocol as necessary for a joint merits hearing.
Please let me know if you have any questions about or objections to the process that I’ve set forth above. Any objections will be resolved by the Board on November 8 prior to the commencement of the hearing. If you do not express any objection you will be deemed to have concurred with this process.
Fred Sussman
I must say that I admire the thoroughness and clarity on Mr. Sussman’s directive.
Now, due to the mail problems I am having with AOL, I am resending the comments I made, or attempted to make, with my last email update on this topic. I will also append the attachment I promised with the last email providing a more technical analysis of the whole density calculation methodology. I apologize for both the length and detail of this email, but I feel that you should have at ability to see what I am seeing.
In summary, I and others have filed an appeal(s) of the so-called Density Calculation Methodology finding for the proposed Eastport Shopping Center redevelopment. The calculation is being appealed based on a determination made by P&Z Director Peter Gutwald after the Administrative Hearing he held on 8 June of this year. The public was invited to attend and testify during this open part of hearing, which many did.
Background On Density Calculation
In September of 2016, Solstice Partners filed an official redevelopment application for the Eastport Shopping Center. The filing followed a number of years of discussion with Planning Department and meetings with the Ward 8 community. I hosted one of those meetings at the Eastport Fire Station meeting hall. The project has evolved over the years due to discussion with staff and the community. The size of the proposal and the number of apartment units evolved, gradually reducing the project in scale.
Still, at a preliminary work session last March before the Planning Commission, I raised concerns about the mass and height of the proposal. Subsequently I and a group of “concerned Citizens” raised concerns about the density of the project and questioned how the developers were justifying the number of apartment units being proposed under the applicable zoning code provisions. The shared view of the citizen group and me is that the number of units permitted has a direct effect on the bulk of the project and its compatibility with community character.
During an approximately two year period prior to submission, the attorney for the developers had discussions with Planning Staff about the number of units that would be allowed under their Special Mixed Planned Development application. Over that same period, many civic leaders and I also engaged in discussion with City staff and the developers.
By way of even deeper background, the property to be redeveloped, the Eastport Shopping Center, is approximately 6.75 acres and is zoned B2 commercial. B2 zoning allows a number of uses, including residential uses above commercial space. However, the developers chose to apply under the Special Mixed Planned Development (SMDP) provisions in the Zoning Code, which is their right to do.
In my view, Title 21 of the City Code is quite clear as to how density is determined under SMPD. The Code (21.24.020.C2) allows up to 30% of the parcel (i.e., 6.75 acres) to be developed under special mixed planned development, or approximately 2 acres. Further the Code (21.24.050.B2) specifies that the number of units allowed in this type of residential redevelopment is the 2 acres allowed for SMPD divided by the average apartment size allowed in R4 zones, 1,700 square feet. By my calculations this yields 52 apartment units. The Concerned Citizens Group, which includes of a number of residents living near the Shopping center, derive a similar number of apartment units.
During a Town Hall meeting I hosed in Eastport at the Eastport Fire Hall, the Director of Planning and Zoning presented a PowerPoint slide that showed a density calculation used by the developers to derive the number of units. That calculation used a method different than what I find in the City Code. P&Z’ employed a derived calculation that I have dubbed a “subtraction method.” This method requires the total lot size (6.75 acres) to be reduced by the amount of already existing B2 commercial on the lot, that is, the existing commercial buildings and required ancillary uses such as parking spaces, drive lanes, sidewalks, etc.; then divided that acreage by 1,700 sq. ft., a value used in the R4 apartment section of the zoning Code. The developers posit that this calculation results in 127 apartment units and is much larger than the 52 units I believe is allowed under the Code.
After much concern raised by residents and me, and analysis from the City Office of Law, the Director of Planning and Zoning held an administrative hearing on 8 June to hear views as to how density should be determined for the project. While the Director did not specify a specific number of units to be approved, he did issue a finding that the subtraction method, with further unspecified refinements the Planning Director did not specify, would be the density calculation method to be used by the Department. This is the decision being appealed by me, the Concerned Citizens and the Developer.
I do not believe that the “subtraction method” is prescribed by the Code, while there is a clearly defined density method in the Code. In addition, for a number of reasons, I find the subtraction method to be so fatally flawed as to be unusable. I took an oath of office to uphold the Charter and City Code of Annapolis. I have chosen to file an appeal of the Director’s finding to the City’s Board of Appeals in order to honor that obligation to defend the Code. I believe that as a quasi-legislative branch of City government, it is the duty of the City Council Members to monitor and act as checks and balances on the operation of the executive operations of City government.
Finally, as your elected repetitive I hold to the view that property owners have rights; that those rights are tempered by zoning and permitting rules to protect community interests and life safety matters; and that all rules should be clear, readily available, and strictly followed in all cases. I am working for you to achieve those objectives for all parties.
I have attached a more detailed review of my analysis of the Density Calculation for those who want more information.
As always, you can contact me at this email address or call my cell at (443) 745-2901.
Ross Arnett
Alderman, Ward 8
Transitions
Are we getting just a little bit tired of the ‘Road Work Ahead’ and ‘Single Lane’ signs?
I’m afraid this is just the start of a period of widespread disruption. Much of the work being done is in preparation for projects that have previously been approved and while the disruption will impact us all, the benefits of the projects will only be realized by a few of the 35,000 households in Annapolis. Only a relative few will have access to or get to use any of the facilities or accompanying activities.
Whatever the impact the finished projects have on the community, that fact has to be added to the many long-term changes taking place in Annapolis and Eastport. Will we be better off as a result of the 2nd and 3rd order effects of the projects? We will know in a short period of time.
Let’s not lose sight of other strategic changes that may influence the basic nature of our community. We are at an inflection point, a period of transition. It is past time for an area report card. Items, concerns or opportunities that need to be part of that report card:
- Ratio of restaurants with alcohol and bars to other retail
- Ease of finding info… water quality for example
- Projections on future of key businesses to support economy… boating/sailing
- Open space per household
- % of local budgets based on real estate taxes
- Need to address limits on growth
- Are we on the right path?
What would you add?
Course of Action
Tell me, I forget
Show me, I remember
Involve me, I understand
(Moore and Davis 1997)
Let me suggest again that we need to require the use of computer modeling and simulation for all large complex projects. That way, we and the project proponents can actually work with the same set of “facts,” rather than talking over each other as to whose “opinion” is the best. Collectively, we can present project input assumptions, develop scenarios and mutually assess outcomes.
The project proponent would be expected to provide funding for the computer modeling and simulation, and the Office of Planning and Zoning (P&Z) would select a prequalified, objective university or research firm to actually conduct the work.
Computer Modeling and Simulation
Computer simulation modeling is a discipline gaining popularity in both government and industry. Computer simulation modeling can assist in the design, creation, and evaluation of complex systems. Designers, program managers, analysts, and engineers use computer simulation modeling to understand and evaluate ‘what if’ case scenarios. It can model a real or proposed system using computer software and is useful when changes to the actual system are difficult to implement, involve high costs, or are impractical. Some examples of computer simulation modeling familiar to most of us include: weather forecasting, flight simulators used for training pilots, and car crash modeling.
Benefits:
- Gain greater understanding of a process
- Identify problem areas or bottlenecks in processes
- Evaluate effect of systems or process changes such as demand, resources, supply, and constraints
- Identify actions needed upstream or downstream relative to a given operation, organization, or activity to either improve or mitigate processes or events
- Evaluate impact of changes in policy prior to implementation
(Copied from web research)
This technology is not new. It should become a staple, used for all projects that exceed a predetermined cost or scope.
[[Previously posted in 2015]
It Would be Great
It would be great if the matters we concern ourselves with proceeded along a straight continuous line. If we could gather supporters, harness the energy, amass the information and then drive the germ of an idea through to a conclusion?
In your experience, how often do events unfold that way?
The more common reality is that all projects are comprised of periods of frantic activity mixed with equally long periods of empty space where we wait interminably on events unfolding. This is very clear when looking at Crystal Spring Forest and Eastport Shopping Center. How do we productively use this space in-between causes, controversies and concerns?
Wouldn’t it be great if we could find the time in our busy lives, which are focused on work, family and the other pursuits that define our days, to just pause. To take a moment to read an eye-catching mailing rather than throwing it away. To write an editorial to the Capital, or to write a post to a community action blog like this one, focused on the welfare of the community we share. To take a look at what’s there and even make a contribution to a conversation for the betterment of Eastport and all of Annapolis by taking an interest in our community.
Why not fill the empty space between the hot spots of proposed projects and the waiting game while nothing at all seems to be happening? We are calling out to all residents of Eastport, of Annapolis, owners and renters alike. We are each and every one of us invested in our future. Our kids attend the same schools, we get stuck in the same traffic, we vote for those we hope will represent us as they promised in the heat of campaign rhetoric.
If we live here, what happens here matters. All of our voices need to be heard.
Life Cycle Costs
Public policy is created from the linkage between the expected outcomes of Planning and Zoning decisions, building codes and traffic plans. Based on the responses of proposed project developers and proponents, their project justification rests heavily on the notion of “economic development” espoused by our elected officials. The source of that economic development, they say, is to be achieved through an increased property tax base and jobs.
Sounds good. A simple ‘take some land, decimate it, add some buildings and hardscape for parking.’ There may be some additional traffic as a result of the development. A big deal? Yes, today it is.
Today, open land exists in small, isolated parcels. Those parcels appear to be limited. It is safe to say that we are at a tipping point. Can we withstand one more development or paved surface or the loss of one more acre of open space?
We all have our opinions. Should our public policy be based on opinions, or yesterday’s analyses based on even older data probably calculated in a pre-computer age?
How can we balance tomorrow’s public policy and our expectations for quality of life? How do we get answers to whether we have outlived old beliefs that property tax on new developments will pay for those new developments over their lifetime, as seen through the lens of their impact on the overall community?
Our officials need to have tools and techniques that enlightened communities use. We have to embrace the benefits of life cycle costs analysis such as Sustainability Return on Investment and Computer Simulation and Modeling.
These are only tools, so they need to function within a process that is strategic and is able to take the results of these tools and techniques into an informed decision-making process. Sure, these tools may be expensive. That is why I propose that the project proponents pay fees that will cover these costs.
The overall process of public policy development and execution needs to be more open. We, the public, to whom those policies should matter, need to be more engaged. The objective data derived from those tools and techniques can help enlighten us, give us more insight into project cause and quality of life effect.
The plan is to open the closed world of public policy development and implementation to a wider world and give us all a voice.
[Originally posted in October 2015 and still relevant.]
eastport defined 