Revisions May Give Residents More Input On Planning

Clarksburg Controversy Is Impetus for Changes

The Montgomery County Planning Board is revising its regulations to allow residents to get more involved in the planning process, a response to widespread criticism sparked by the Clarksburg controversy.

Proposed changes in the "rules of procedure" would require developers and the planning board to give residents more input and advance notice about upcoming projects or changes to projects. The rules also make formal previously unwritten understandings about how hearings are conducted.

"Assuming that we receive comments that lead us to adopt them, they mainly will provide a clearer process than we've had at present, and we're hopeful a way of handling our business expeditiously," Planning Board Chairman Royce Hanson said.

After a series of building irregularities was discovered last year in the Clarksburg Town Center development, a study of the planning department found lax internal controls, low staff morale and other problems in the development review process.

Earlier this year, the board sought public comment on what should be changed in the public hearing process, and in a packed meeting residents called for numerous improvements: longer times at the lectern to speak; more time to rebut and cross-examine; more public notification about projects, hearings and staff reports; and clearer regulations. Some even asked for a full-time planning board.

After a draft of proposals was introduced in early September, a public hearing was conducted a few weeks later. A vote on the proposed regulations is scheduled during the Nov. 2 planning board meeting. (The latest draft is available at http://www.mc-mncppc.org .)

Adrian R. Gardner, general counsel for the Maryland-National Park and Planning Commission, who penned the revisions, said he performed "major surgery" on the original rules.

Changes include requiring written resolutions on all planning board decisions to make sure "there isn't any confusion in anyone's mind about exactly what it is [the board is] deciding," Gardner said.

Other revisions would better define what can appear on a consent agenda -- the group of items that requires little or no discussion for approval -- and clarify the process for reconsideration and appeals of decisions.

"We wanted more specificity and more detail in how the hearing process is expected to proceed," Gardner said. "I think the current rules are less detailed about who's supposed to do what at what point. [In the revised rules] we are explicating the roles of staff, the board, the applicant and the community."

Marcie Stickle, who is active in neighborhood issues and is on the board of the Silver Spring Historical Society, has attended many hearings and thinks changes are necessary.

"It's critical to have rebuttal and cross-examination time to clarify the issues and to get to the heart of the matter," she said. Often, she said, applicants on projects get the last word and "we don't get to rebut."

The proposed rules set specific times for rebuttals and cross-examinations. And staff reports are required to be made public 10 days before a hearing on a project.

In recent discussions about the proposed rules, Stickle said she experienced something new -- something pleasant.

"We were having a conversation with the planning board members and we weren't even timed," she said. "It was wonderful; there weren't the lights and buzzers." She hopes to see similar free-form discussions in the future.

David Brown, a lawyer with Knopf & Brown in Rockville who specializes in representing neighborhood groups on development issues, said providing adequate time for residents to present objections to staff reports or filings by developers after the staff reports is a key issue.

Brown, whose firm represented the Clarksburg Town Center Advisory Committee in its battle against developers, said: "We think that the team of legal talent devoted to pushing development through needs some counterbalancing on the other side."

Officials discovered during the Clarksburg controversy that some planning staff had approved changes without public oversight. Now, the board and staff are in the process of creating a development manual outlining what is supposed to happen internally. The aim is to make the process more transparent, Gardner said. The manual is currently being circulating among the staff, Gardner said, but is not yet complete.

Brown complained that approving rules for hearings without a completed development manual is misguided.

"For maximum utility and transparency, we need to see both sets of rules and make sure they're harmonized," he said.

Bill Kominers, a development lawyer, said that the revised rules create a lot more work and set up unnecessary conflict.

They "push all parties into a more adversarial process, including the staff" he said. "They've made it a lot more work for everybody involved."

But Gardner said the board is intent on making sure everyone can participate in the planning decisions affecting neighborhoods.

"We have been and will continue to exercise every possible reform to create an environment of transparency," he said. "The best disinfectant is plenty of sunshine, and that's where we're going."