A proposal to streamline the county zoning appeals process was called both "fair" and "unfair" at a public hearing this week, but many of the 15 residents who testified before the County Council found themselves somewhere in the middle.
"I think the process can be refined and I think it can be made more expedient," Woodbine resident Carl Oehrig said at the hearing Monday, Oct. 17. "Some rules need to be set up by the Board of Appeals in terms of length of time and the testimony."
Time was one of the reasons the administration gave for filing the bill, which would have the five-member citizens group would hear zoning cases appealed from the hearing examiner "on the record," meaning neither side would be allowed to present new evidence.
The board currently hears cases as "de novo," or from scratch, as requested by the appellants. Less than one-fifth of hearing examiner decisions are appealed to the board, officials said, but most are requested to be heard as de novo cases.
"It would be more efficient," Department of Planning and Zoning director Marsha McLaughlin said of the proposal, made by County Executive Ken Ulman. "It's a lay board. They're busy. It's a lot of time for them."
Like Oehrig, many of the residents agreed with the administration's intent to streamline the process, but they didn't agree with the approach.
"The proposed change might speed up the process, but I don't think it necessarily results in a better decision," said Woodbine resident Theodore Mariani, speaking on behalf of the Concerned Citizens of Western Howard County. "A change of this matter should be much more carefully thought out."
In the group's experience, Mariani said the lengthiness of many cases is due to testimony "that adds little in substance to the case." That, he said, could be remedied "by the Board of Appeals exercising a stronger hand in managing the cases."
Support from business
Columbia resident Joan Lancos opposed the bill, noting the current process "gives that average community group the opportunity for the do over, the opportunity to properly prepare their case."
Ellicott City resident Robert Weaver said the proposed change contradicts the point of having a citizens board listen to appeals from the hearing examiner, a paid legal professional hired by the County Council.
"That would seem to be more of a legal review that's better served by judges," he said of hearing the cases on the record.
The business community, meanwhile, argued the administration's proposal still allows for due process, as it gives both sides a fair opportunity to present their cases before the hearing examiner.
"The delay caused by a second hearing can be in many cases more unfair," Cole Schnorf, development director of Columbia-based commercial real estate company Manekin LLC, said. "The time involved in going through the process can cause a project to die as much as the facts of the case."
Mark Thompson, a Chamber of Commerce board member and owner of a commercial real estate business, added: "The only losers in this instance are the attorneys and consultants who get to charge their clients, whether it be the community or developers, twice for the same work."
Councilwoman Courtney Watson, an Ellicott City Democrat, said the council needs to have a better understanding of what problems the administration is trying to solve. She suggested the council consider forming a task force of citizens from both sides to study the appeals process and recommend efficiencies.
The council is expected to discuss the bill at its work session Monday, Oct. 24 at 4:30 p.m. and either vote on the proposal or table it on Nov. 7.