Test 4

Test 3

Mobike droid ping.fm test 2

Ping.FM test ping. Happy New Year, BTW, to all.

Impact Fees-Second Hearing, April 19, 2010 County Council

Many members of Growth Action and others testified in opposition to County Council bill 12-10 that would roll back impact fees that went from extremely low for over 20 years to reasonable on Jan 1, 2010. Now however, the new fee schedule for higher fees has been threatened by a bill #1 12-10 that would further delay reasonable impact fees and even make refunds of fees paid in 2010 under the current schedule.

AA County has suffered from extremely low impact fees that have prevented the County from keeping up with needed infrastructure to support it.

Your testimony on April 19 is important as well as your contacting the Council person hwo represents your district. Hearing starts at 7 PM and you can sign up to testify at 6:30 PM outside the County Council chambers.

HEARING, Monday, April 5, 7PM-Impact Fee Roll-Back

An important hearing is set for April 5, 2010 before the County Council on a bill with 4 sponsors to roll back impact fees.

This will shift more of the cost of new services for new development to taxpayers and the County at a time of great financial shortfalls in the County budget.

Please come out to the hearing and oppose this bill!

Will AA Co Impact Fees be Rolled Back?

DELAYING IMPACT FEES-County Council Bill 12-10

A principle that we learned from our Forum speaker, Eben Fodor, author of Better Not Bigger is that new growth does not pay for the increased services required to support growth.

A technique used by many jurisdictions is to impose an “impact fee” to recover part or most of the cost of growth-primarily additional costs for roads, schools and safety. Anne Arundel County has had extremely low impact fees for the past 20 years.

The Administration and the County Council crafted a bill in 2008 that was passed by the County Council that phased in impact fees to eventually recapture 80% of the cost of residential growth. The phased in schedule was in recognition of the tough economic times faced by us all. However, now 4 members of the County Council have introduced a bill that will delay increases in impact fees even further. These impact fees are real and when developers do not pay the full cost of development, the taxpayers pay it directly or indirectly by diminished quality of life. Growth Action members will try to allow a full an open debate on this issue so that it is clear who will bear the burden and why.

Questions for P&Z on the Subdivion Review Process

1.Since the pre-submittal meeting is the only time presently for interested persons to get detailed information on and comment on proposed developments, shouldn’t minimal requirements be required for the information to be presented at ht meeting such as including the location and size of proposed structures and roads and the location and potential impacts on environmentally sensitive areas. Also, shouldn’t the meetings be focused on potential adjacent communities, and areas of significant natural value and the water quality in the watershed in which the proposed project is located not just on adjacent property owners?

2. Once a subdivision proposal has been submitted, what is the best way that interested persons can get detailed information on the proposal and to ensure that the concerns they may have about the proposed development are addressed?

3. Could you explain exactly what is shown on the Subdivision Activity Maps? Does it only show developments that are in the review process? What actually is the status of developments that were submitted over 10 years ago? Where can one get information on Subdivisions that have received final approval, both those that have been built out and those that have infill potential.?

4. Are there archival files on Pre-submittal meetings once they have been held or subdivision submittals more than three months previously?

Comprehensive Re-Zoning Application Process

INFORMATION ON COMPREHENSIVE ZONING

Following adoption of the 2009 General Development Plan, the Office of Planning and Zoning will initiate a Comprehensive Zoning process. The application period for the 2010 Comprehensive Zoning will be held between December 1, 2009 and January 29, 2010. The Comprehensive Zoning Application will be available on this website on November 23, 2009 and throughout the application period. Hard copies will also be available from the Office of Planning and Zoning at that time.

All Comprehensive Zoning Applications will be evaluated by the Office of Planning and Zoning. Applicants will receive a letter from the Office stating its recommendation on the application prior to the introduction of legislation.

Additional information on Comprehensive Zoning may be found in the 2009 General Development Plan (Final Draft April 2009) in the section entitled “Relationship of the Land Use Plan and Comprehensive Zoning” (Chapter 7, page 114). The section explains the criteria used by the Office of Planning and Zoning in evaluating future Comprehensive Zoning Applications.

For additional information on this process, please contact Lynn Miller or Cindy Carrier in the Long Range Planning Division, Office of Planning and Zoning, at (410) 222-7432.

Land Use Changes Made by the County Council

Land Use Changes Adopted by the County Council Oct 19, 2009 (Bill 64-09)

1.Properties along Long Hill Rd-N. of Rte 100

From Residential Low Density to Residential High Density

2. 1011 Skidmore Drive from Rural to Commercial

3. SW Quadrant MD Rte 175 and Brock Bridge Rd. Residential Low Density to Industrial

4. NW Quadrant Md Rte 175 and Ridge Rd - RLD to RMD and Commercial

5. Wright Rd at SE Quadrant of Md 295 and Md 100-Industrial and Low Med RLD to high density residential

6. 1110-1118 Reece Road, Severn Low-Med Density and High Density Residential to High Density Residential

7. White Ave, Linthicum - Low Density Res to Industrial

8. Ridgeley Rd and Palisades on the Severn-Low Density Res to Maritime.

9.East side of Marley Neck Blvd, West of Solley Rd-Industrial to Low-Med Density Residential

10. Veterans Hwy at Brightview Drive –Low density Res to Commercial

11. 8436 Brock Bridge Rd=Low Density Res and Transportation Utility to High Density Res.

12. 520 Brock Bridge Road, Suburban Airport- Low Density Res and trans/Utility to High Density Res.

13. 915 to 939 Bay Ridge Road-Commercial and Low Density Res to commercial

14. 2691 Riva Road, Annapolis - Low Density Res to Commercial

15. N side of 8^th Ave, E of Penrod Ct, Glen Burnie-Commercial Res Low and Med Density and Natural Features to Industrial and Natural features

16. 12443 Old Dorsey Road, W Telegraph Rd-Industrial and Natural Features to Industrial

17. 7815 Sandy Farm Rd, Severn-Low Density Res to Industrial

18. Sandy Farm Road and Weiker Rd S of MD 100 and Telegraph Rd-Residential to ? Commercial (Bill is blank, but notes indicate commercial)

19. 7442-7482 Shipley Avenue, Harmans-Industiral and Natural Features to Industrial

20. 708 Bestgate Road, E of Lincoln Parkway-Low Density Res. To commercial

21. 756 Old Stevenson Rd, W of New Cut Rd at I 97-Res Low/ Med Density to Commercial

22. 158-164 W. Central Ave (Md 214) E of Rolling Road-Res Low Density to Commercial

23. 2976 Solomon’s Island Road at Collision Lee Lane, Edgewater-Commercial and Res Low Density to Commercial

24. 1434-1436 Ritchie Hwy, Arnold-res to Commercial

These are changes to the Land Use Map of the General Development Plan- unless rezoned in the up-coming Comprehensive Re-Zoning Process this change will not effect the zoning.

Threat to Patuxuent Wildlife Refuge?

A request by Anne Arundel County to bring utilities to West County under the Baltimore Washington Parkway at Maryland Rte 198 is being reviewed by the National Park Service and an Environmental Assessment has been prepared.

You may review the Environmental Assessment(EA) at Parkplanning.NPS.Gov/NACE.

I CAN E-MAIL YOU A COPY OF THE EA IF YOU HAVE TROUBLED ACESSING IT.

Comments on the EA will be accepted by the Park Service until Nov 13, 2009:

National Capital Parks-East

Re Balt-Wash/Md Rt 198 Utility ROW EA

1900 Anacostia Drive, S. E.

Washington, D.C. 20020

FAX: 202-690-0862

Many local residents are concerned about the potential negative impacts that the extension of such utilities may have on the Patuxent Wildlife Refuge.

Passage of the 2009 GDP

On October 19, 2009, the County Council passed the General Development Plan with over 30 amendments. Some of these amendments were required by the State of Maryland so that the plan would comply with new law. A large number of the amendments were changes in the Land Use Map for the County. The changes to the land use map are important, but do not automatically change the zoning of the property. The Comprehensive Re-zoning process begins December 1, 2009 when any property owner may request a zoning change. The Planning and Zoning Office will make recommendations to the County Council in the form of legislation, but any re-zoning may also be proposed by members of the Council up until the time the re-zoning bill is passed.

Town Hall Meeting on the Bay-Aug 11

Chesapeake Bay Town Hall Aug. 11, Annapolis

President Obama has ordered federal agencies to draft plans by Sept. 9 to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. A diverse group representing business, academic, faith, environmental and other interests will meet with a top official from the EPA to discuss specific steps the Administration must take.

WHAT: Chesapeake Bay Town Hall Meeting

WHEN: Tuesday, Aug. 11, 6:30-8:00pm

WHERE: St. Philip's Episcopal Church

730 Bestgate Road, Annapolis, MD 21401

WHO:

Chuck Fox, EPA Senior Advisor on the Chesapeake Bay

Dr. Don Boesch, President, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science

Will Baker, President of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Tommy Landers, Policy Advocate, Environment Maryland

CONTACT: Tommy Landers, Environment Maryland, 410-467-0439 or Terry Cummings, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 410-268-8816 Seating is limited. Please RSVP to Environment Maryland-environmentmaryland.org/baytownhall

Maryland Dept of Planning to Discuss Smart Growth

1.The Maryland

Planning Directors'

Roundtable

"Convening regularly for the purpose of sharing ideas on smart and sustainable growth"

Held at the Banneker-Douglass Museum in Annapolis.

Secretary of Planning Richard Hall invites all local government planning professionals to attend the Spring 2009 meeting of the Maryland Planning Directors' Roundtable on Thursday, July 23, 2009. The meeting will be held at The Banneker-Douglass Museum from 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

Banneker-Douglass Museum

84 Franklin Street

Annapolis, MD 21401

Thursday, July 23, 2009

9:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

John Coleman

(410) 767-4614

Maryland Department of Planning

The public is welcome to audit this meeting.

Anonymous Complaints by Citizens

Last year the Anne Arundel County Council Chambers were filled with angry citizens wearing red tee shirts with the phrase"Stop the Zoning Gestapo". Many of the "red shirts" had received a notice of a violation of County law and believed that they were unfairly targeted.

Now a bill supported by this group that is also known as PROPO, will before the County Council on Monday, June 15 at 7 PM. We expect a large turn out by this group and we need to counter their arguments to keep this bill from passing.

Zoning inspectors are enforcing the law of the County and anonymous sources are widely used by all law enforcement agencies, hotlines, etc. As the Deputy County Attorney said " Why would a serious law enforcement organization cut off information?"

All complaints, with and without names and addresses, are investigated by Inspections and Permits. If unfounded, the case is closed. If there is a violation an enforcement letter is sent.

Contact your Council Representative and come to the hearing next Monday!

Enforcement in our county has been less than effective in past years. Making it less likely that citizens file complaints weakens the enforcement effort.

On July 27, 2009 the County Council voted this bill down with a vote of 7 to 1.

PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD BRIEFING

The Planning Advisory Board (PAB)will have a briefing on the General Development Plan(GDP) on Wed, May 6, 2009 at 6:30 PM at the Arundel Center, 44 Calvert Street, Annapolis 21401.

There will be little opportunity for  public comment, although there may be some. Comments may be sent to the PAB following the briefing.

It is the role of the PAB, a volunteer citizens group, to advise the County Executive on the Draft GDP.

Let the PAB have your views and comments on the GDP.

New law on land annexation

Land Annexations 

A December 2005 Maryland Department of Planning report indicated that, from 1997 

through 2005, the acreage of municipal corporations in Maryland had grown by an estimated 

11%, or 27,453 acres, as a result of annexation, with the greatest percentage increases occurring 

in Western Maryland and on the Eastern Shore.  Chapter 381 of 2006 altered State law regarding 

municipal annexation by, among other things, requiring municipalities that exercise zoning 

authority to include a municipal growth element in their comprehensive plans and for 

annexations on or after October 2009, requiring a municipal annexation plan that is consistent 

with the municipal growth element.   

Senate Bill 350/House Bill 220 (both passed) exempt proposed municipal annexations of 

parcels of land that are five acres or less, and that are part of a lot containing at least one other 

parcel that has been part of the municipal corporate area for at least three years, from the 

requirements that consent be obtained from a specified percentage of area residents and property 

owners and that the proposed annexation be subject to a referendum.  A municipal corporation, 

however, may not annex a total of more than 25 acres under the exceptions of the bills, and the 

bills do not apply to land zoned for agricultural use.  Provisions of the bills terminate 

September 30, 2011. 

Bikes for the World-Donation Event-May 16

Have a bike that you are not using? Someone in a developing county could use your bike to get to school, work and home again.

Saturday May 16, 2009  10AM  to 1PM bring your bike to 

Pedal Pushers, 546 B&A Blvd (in the shopping area with the Big Bean Coffee Shop)

A donation of $10 is needed to defray the cost of shipping overseas.

This is a project of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association, a 501 (c) (3) organization. For further info go to bikes for the world.org or call 1-703-525-0931

AA County Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA)

Comments by Mike Lofton 4/11/09

Comments are based on a review of the referenced report prepared by TischlerBise dated March 6, 2009.

The FIA attempts to predict revenues & expenses for Anne Arundel County based on a series of “Growth Scenarios” to the year 2025. Ostensibly, these predictions should help guide public policy with a sense of the financial implications of various strategies.

The task is a daunting one. My compliments to the consultant for an impressive effort. Nonetheless, several issues ought to be further explored before the FIA is relied upon for policy making.

As a general concern the FIA takes an optimistic view of prospective revenues while potentially understating potential expenses. Specifically,

* In estimating futures expenses, the FIA assumes that current levels of public services are satisfactory and will remain unchanged thru 2025. It does not incorporate projects in the County Capital Improvement Plan or other approved master plans. It is hard to imagine that county officials and the public will not seek to implement these plans.

    *The FIA does not include expenses to address the substantial stormwater management system needed in the county. This was a major issue in the last election with both candidates for County Executive promising solutions.

    * The FIA avoids the cost of new school capacity by assuming school population will swell to 120% of capacity. When costs are calculated using 100% of capacity the “Growth Surplus” virtually vanishes!

    *It is difficult to tell if all the “Backlog Costs” have been included. Significant new requirements to account for future costs have been imposed by the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB). A systematic review of those requirements & the assumed costs in the FIA needs to be made.

    *The assumption of a zero inflation rate certainly makes the math easier but it could be misleading. Some historical data on recent cost trends in the major costs of county government (specifically “Backlog” components) should be made. Consideration should also be given for the potential of property tax revenues to be constrained below the real inflation rate by the tax cap.

On the revenue assumption side:

    *The FIA assumes constant State funding at existing ratios. This is not a safe assumption.

    *The FIA assumes recordation & transfer taxes at a constant 15% of total revenues thru 2025. This revenue sources is collapsing now. The FIA projection should be compared to the most recent County budget office projections for at least the next few years. It is likely to significantly under perform the FIA projection in the short term.

General observations:

    *The FIA does not differentiate the fiscal impacts of different types of growth. A comparison of the costs/expenses of residential vs. commercial and infill vs. greenfield could be a very valuable policy tool.

    *The FIA concludes that Scenario #4, Accelerated Growth, is the most financially advantageous to the County. Caution is advised in considering this scenario. It rests on the questionable assumptions cited above and ignores the creation of an extraordinary “Backlog” as a result of the County’s current revenue tools.

    * Scenario #2 has the worst financial performance based on, “the assumption of additional jobs at Ft. Meade, which are assumed to be non-taxable thus generating cost to serve the growth without commensurate revenue. So is BRAC a net cost to the County?

    *The discussion of Debt limitation ought to note options cited in the FY 2010 Report of the County Spending Affordability Committee, which could provide additional debt capacity.

    *In assessing potential revenue sources to address the “Backlog” the consultants ought to refrain from making political calculations about acceptability to the public. Surely our elected officials can sort these matters out.

    *The FIA ought to examine policy options for Tax Increment Financing. Currently, 100% of the increment is devoted to financing infrastructure for development. Approaches using less than 100% may be feasible in some cases creating additional GF revenues.

    *One thing is for sure; we can’t grow our way out of this mess. Our elected officials need to craft revenue & expense strategy that truly makes growth at least pay for itself AND responsibly eliminates the large & growing backlog in the maintenance and renovation of essential public infrastructure.

Thanks for all of your insight on this, Mike

Ann

Earth Day 2009-Severna Park