It is not often that we witness government rejecting what is popular in order to do what is right. The Howard County Council, however, has done that in unanimously approving a bill following the spirit of a controversial zoning referendum while avoiding its legal pitfalls.
In implementing Question B, the charter amendment that won voter approval last fall, the council decided that broad, comprehensive rezoning of sections of the county will henceforth be subject to legislative acts of the council. On the other hand, piecemeal rezoning -- that is, zoning changes to individual properties -- will continue to be handled by the council when it sits as the zoning board.
This may seem a niggling technicality, but it is a bitter pill to those who fought for Question B. Nevertheless, it is the correct decision.
Proponents of Question B had wanted the council to assume responsibility for all zoning decisions except those that represent a change or mistake in the regulations. Such a move would have made all but a handful of zoning decisions subject to being overturned by voter referendum or a veto of the county executive.
But the county solicitor's office warned the council that implementing the amendment that way would rob property owners of their rights to due process by subjecting their zoning requests to popular votes. The solicitor recommended that such piecemeal cases continue to be handled by the zoning board, from which appeals can be made to the courts. Had the council heeded the wishes of Question B supporters, such zoning cases would have gone through both the zoning board and council. That had the potential of tying up land-use decisions for years, inviting lawsuits from property owners.
Question B supporters argue that the council's first obligation should be to citizens who voted for the referendum. But council members said Question B's intent was obscure, and despite all that was said and written about it, we have to agree.
Under the circumstances, the council was wise to avoid a decision that denies due process to property owners. Moreover, we suspect that most supporters of Question B merely sought more order and openness over the development of Howard County and were not interested in turning every zoning decision into a courtroom cause celebre.