Comp-Lite. Merdon't position has always been that those 18 properties should have gone through the conditional use process and not comp-lite.
When those properties did EVENTUALLY go through the conditional use process Merdon found no issue with their petitions and welcomed the public input during the conditional use process (which was so lacking in the comp-lite process). That is why Merdon supported the petitioners.
He objected to the comp-lite process not being followed which allowed these properties to escape the public scrutiny of the conditional use process.
Again, the point is that the properties never should have been permitted in comp-lite thus by passing public input and scrutiny. That is not the purpose or design of comp-lite.
The proper process was conditional use. The petitioners/properties met the guidelines in the conditional use process.
Now Merdon is being hit for following the law. Ulman understands this as well as Merdon does. He is fogging the issue.
Apparantly the Baltimore Sun understands this distinction. The distinction being Comp-Lite v Conditional Use. They did endorse Merdon on this point.
"...because he seems more sensitive to the concerns of county residents who feel shut out of land-use decisions. Mr. Merdon was the only council member to vote against the "Comp Lite" legislation that allowed some properties a shortcut to rezoning, feeding a growing distrust in government that may take some years to overcome.
2 comments:
Comp-Lite. Merdon't position has always been that those 18 properties should have gone through the conditional use process and not comp-lite.
When those properties did EVENTUALLY go through the conditional use process Merdon found no issue with their petitions and welcomed the public input during the conditional use process (which was so lacking in the comp-lite process). That is why Merdon supported the petitioners.
He objected to the comp-lite process not being followed which allowed these properties to escape the public scrutiny of the conditional use process.
Again, the point is that the properties never should have been permitted in comp-lite thus by passing public input and scrutiny. That is not the purpose or design of comp-lite.
The proper process was conditional use. The petitioners/properties met the guidelines in the conditional use process.
Now Merdon is being hit for following the law. Ulman understands this as well as Merdon does. He is fogging the issue.
Apparantly the Baltimore Sun understands this distinction. The distinction being Comp-Lite v Conditional Use. They did endorse Merdon on this point.
"...because he seems more sensitive to the concerns of county residents who feel shut out of land-use decisions. Mr. Merdon was the only council member to vote against the "Comp Lite" legislation that allowed some properties a shortcut to rezoning, feeding a growing distrust in government that may take some years to overcome.
Here is some more Chutzpah for you.
http://hocomd.wordpress.com/2006/10/20/chutzpah/
Post a Comment