The County Council held a public hearing Oct. 7 on Amendment 15 to CB 15, a proposed change to the zoning code affecting the Commercial General Office (CGO) zone outside the Capital Beltway. Amendment 15 would eliminate the special-exception approval pathway for residential development on parcels or assemblages up to 25 acres in the CGO zone and would bar using a rezoning to Planned Development (PD) to propose residential projects in that zone.

Planning staff reported that the Planning Board voted to support Amendment 15 and found it consistent with adopted policies. Thomas Haller, representing Center Park 3 LLC, urged the council to reject the change, saying the CGO zone was intended to allow mixed-use redevelopment — including by‑right multifamily uses — and warned that forcing developers into special-exception or rezoning processes adds cost, time and uncertainty.

Jeffrey Collins of the Route 202 Neighborhood Coalition urged rejection of Amendment 15 and supported alternative proposals (including Amendment 13 and CB 43) that he said provide more coherent standards to guide redevelopment. Matthew Tedesco, representing development interests, also supported Amendment 15 and warned that limiting by‑right residential uses would undermine the original goals of the CGO district to encourage mixed-use redevelopment and new rooftops near commercial centers.

Councilmembers did not take a final vote at this session; the public hearing concluded and testimony will be part of the record for future council consideration. The hearing record shows a clear split: planning staff and some legal representatives argue the amendment clarifies and restores the CGO zone’s original intent, while community advocates and some developers say it will create practical barriers to redevelopment and could lead to uneven treatment across parcels.

Speakers asked the council to consider locational standards, the feasibility of requiring PD rezoning for large commercial parcels, and the legal uniformity of treating visually identical properties differently based only on acreage or location. The hearing proceeded under the schedule required by a court order limiting the scope of the second public hearing to Amendment 15.

No formal council action on Amendment 15 was taken at the conclusion of the hearing; the matter remains a pending legislative item for future deliberation and potential amendment.