Prince George's County - Zoning and Land Use - Fairness in Zoning PG/MC 106-24
The proposed changes under HB 1104 significantly impact existing statutes regarding zoning powers in Prince George's County. By removing the exclusivity of the planning board's authority over zoning issues, the bill ushers in a new layer of oversight from the district council. This change could streamline the process of rezoning and enhance fairness in land use decisions by making them subject to greater scrutiny from an elected body. Moreover, the alteration of judicial review criteria is likely to reduce the ability of residents to contest zoning decisions in court, affecting community engagement in local governance.
House Bill 1104, titled 'Prince George’s County – Zoning and Land Use – Fairness in Zoning', aims to modify the zoning and land use authority within Prince George’s County. This bill allows the district council's review and final action on zoning and subdivision matters that are ordinarily within the planning board's jurisdiction. The district council will have the authority to adopt and amend procedures regarding zoning decisions, emphasizing the collaborative role of the district council and the planning board in these matters. Additionally, it alters the standing requirements for individuals requesting a review of zoning decisions, making it easier for some community members to appeal decisions made by the planning board or zoning hearing examiner.
Notable points of contention surrounding HB 1104 include concerns regarding the balance of power between the planning board and the district council. Critics of the bill may argue that centralizing more authority in the district council risks politicizing zoning decisions, potentially leading to decisions that may not align with community interests. Additionally, the changes to judicial review processes, while aimed at making zoning matters less burdensome, could limit avenues for accountability and appeal, raising concerns among advocacy groups and those opposing the bill. The ongoing dialogue highlights a tension between improving administrative efficiency versus preserving community control over zoning matters.