Bill 76-12, MH Zones
Sponsor: Bevins
Benefitted: Martin State property developers
Allows BM or CT District uses in MH, if
- property at least 40 acres; and
- including a building on the MHT Inventory of Historic Properties
- provided that "at least a portion" of the building is retained (doesn't say how much)
The Bill is faulty for several reasons:
- The reference to "MHT Inventory" is improper. The previous Council had passed Bill 26-07 upon request of MHT to remove a previous provision in the County Code which used this MHT Inventory in a similar regulatory manner.
- Basing this allowance on CT District uses is really confusing and ambiguous. For example:
- Does this mean as defined in §238B - Special Regulations for CT Districts, which addresses various situations?
- Which part is this Bill intended to reference or is it meant to include every other use allowed in any CT District?
- Would any other change made to CT in the future (e.g. Bill 79-12) apply?
It should be noted that $sect;259, which provides "Legislative Intent" for Districts, describes where CT could apply but, by itself, does not provide any allowances.
In reality, zoning a property CT does not, in itself, provide any real uses.
See this article which calls this Bill "a politician's end-around the already pending referendum" and says "it's a private law to benefit one property, not a public law, which violates the Maryland Constitution,".
And in a final "kick-in-the pants", the intended use as mixed development fell through. See article. The intended use is now "manufacturing and distribution", something allowed before this faulty Bill was passed. The article quoted Bevins as saying "It's heartbreaking." What's heartbreaking is that she continues to sponsor these illegal Bills. She also says "This would have put us on the map." It already did, as the center of abuse of an elected position.
|