The development battle reported by Arthur Hirsch ("Timonium-area housing plan fought," Jan. 24) exemplifies the poor legislation enacted by the prior Baltimore County Council when it modified the planned unit development (PUD) law.
As Mr. Hirsch points out, "Under PUD rules, developers can build higher numbers of homes in exchange for a 'community benefit.'" A "community benefit" is defined as including one or more of the following four categories, that are loaded with administrative discretion, and allow very easy compliance for developers while making it very difficult for communities to oppose higher densities:
The first is an "environmental benefit by proposing to achieve at least a silver rating according to the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED Green Building Rating System or proposing residential structures that achieve at least a silver rating according to SNSI standards." While this is an "objective" standard, county law should require this as a minimum way to build any housing in the future and make densities such that communities can live with them. Yes, volume builders will complain, but they had their day and rode the wave, now it is time to build for the future and make realistic pricing. This poor economy won't last forever.
The second is a "land use benefit, including proposing a higher quality architectural design or use of higher quality building materials that enhance the development for its residents." Why not just require defined higher quality designs and materials as part of normal building — and not use such a nebulous definition of a benefit that leaves contested battles to expert architects to testify (assuming it could even get that far). If the council were truly looking after the public interest they would not need a carrot to encourage builders to build better housing, it should be required.
The third is a "capital improvement benefit to an onsite or nearby county-owned facility for use by community residents, or to a volunteer fire company that serves the planned unit development." What degree of improvement are we talking about — whatever the council decides is best for each individual's reelection campaign?
The fourth is "a public policy benefit promoting economic development opportunities, or providing senior or workforce housing." This is so broad and discretionary that it is also a great fundraising tool for the county executive and council members!
Make no mistake, a cursory reading of a "community benefit" may sound noble, but the practical result will be that large, influential developers will easily achieve minimal compliance with communities left with very little "law" or "fact" on their side. Even if the communities muster the assets or the will to oppose more density, the politically influential builder/developers will prevail because the PUD law is front-loaded in their favor.
Once the council passes its resolution for a PUD to go forward, it eventually will go to a hearing officer who was appointed by the county executive. With a history of Baltimore County executives being developer friendly, hearing officers will not have to exert much effort to define a "community benefit" in a minimally, pro-developer manner — unless the word comes down that it would not be politically expedient, something that results from major lobbying efforts by volunteer community activists and fundraising that helps existing officials. This is not the way land-use law, regulation and development/construction in the county should occur. We have a mess in this county resulting from such discretion.
These PUD law changes result from requests by some volunteer community representatives to correct a situation on the east side of the county that they felt was unreasonable under the prior PUD law. While changing the law, the prior County Council fulfilled the old adage "be careful what you wish for" by allowing developers to obtain a PUD merely by showing some "community benefit," leaving volumes of political discretion to define such benefits. This behavior was typical of the prior council, and I hope that the new council will immediately make changes to the PUD law before it wreaks havoc.
Alan P. Zukerberg, Pikesville
The writer is president of the Pikesville Communities Corporation.