President's Message
Planned Unit Developments Stir Community Questions
Lately, many umbrella community associations have held a lot of discussions about the PUD- or Planned Unit Development- process. Initially, the PUD process provided an accelerated method for large developments with mixed uses to be approved by Baltimore County if the development demonstrated a community benefit and if a substantially higher quality of development could be achieved in comparison to a conventional development. An early example of that type of PUD is the Mays Chapel community. Prior to the development of Mays Chapel, the property was largely vacant and zoned for low density residential use. The Keelty Company, through the PUD process, was allowed to construct a mix of medium and high density residential uses, along with some supporting commercial use, in exchange for a higher quality of development, certain public infrastructure improvements and other enhancements.
Over the years the PUD process has evolved. One of the first changes occurred with the introduction of strictly commercial PUDs. By their very nature, these commercial properties seeking PUD approval were smaller in size than the first wave of PUDs. In this area, we have seen two commercial PUDs that I am aware of: the first being some conversion of warehouse use on the east side of York Road, just south of Aylesbury Road, and the second being the Hummer Dealership across from Industry Lane. Changes in 2007 made the process more streamlined, but also brought concerns from many community associations. The PUD process does not provide the same depth of public notice about the development that would be present in the Comprehensive Zoning Process, where properties are posted for a longer period of time and correspondence about the requested change are sent to adjoining property owners. Secondly, the PUD process does not provide for the same number of public hearings that occur in the Comprehensive Zoning Process. Finally, in the traditional development process for a major development, the public is afforded a quasi-judicial hearing where testimony is given, cross examination can take place and counter testimony can be registered. The PUD process, however, does not directly allow for the same type of quasi-judicial proceeding.
Another matter of controversy rests with the issue of "community benefit". Recently, some developers have claimed that the PUD project itself provides the required community benefit because the project will bring features that do not currently exist in that community. For example, an assisted living facility in a community that currently does not have one has been argued to be a community benefit. On the other hand, some community leaders would like to see a benefit over and above the project itself. For example, the Hummer Dealership provided a significant donation to the Cockeysville Library as its community benefit.
Recently, many of these complaints hit the fan when two separate PUDs were overturned at the Board of Appeals- one a PUD on Millers Island, the other a PUD in Bowleys Quarters. We will have as our guest at the next GTCC meeting Mr. Peter Max Zimmerman, from the Office of People's Counsel, who successfully argued for the overturn of one of those PUD projects. It will be your opportunity to learn more about the controversial aspects of the process and why Mr. Zimmerman decided to appeal that PUD project. Hope you can find time to join us at our May 13th GTCC Meeting.
Eric Rockel, President