Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County Council adopts redevelopment ordinance after debate over C4 residential rules
Summary
The Anne Arundel County Council approved Bill 2-25, a redevelopment ordinance intended to streamline and incentivize redevelopment on already-developed parcels. The measure passed 4-3 after members debated whether the bill allows new residential uses in C4 zones and whether density bonuses should be limited to policy areas.
The Anne Arundel County Council on April 7 adopted Bill 2-25, an ordinance intended to streamline redevelopment of underused, developed parcels across the county, voting 4-3 after a final technical amendment.
The administration told the council the bill aims to encourage reinvestment in existing commercial properties and reduce sprawl. Ethan Hunt, representing the administration, said the legislation “incentivizes and simplifies redevelopment of existing, developed sites throughout the county.” Jansen Evelyn, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer for Land Use, and Lynn Miller, Assistant Planning and Zoning Officer, joined administration staff in explaining the measure and answering council questions.
Council members focused on how the bill changes where multi‑family residential can be added in C4 commercial zones and how density bonuses would be applied. Several council members asked whether the bill permits redevelopment on well and septic and whether the density bonus (22 units per acre in certain areas) applies countywide. Councilmember Pickard pressed staff on practical constraints, asking, “would it even be possible to put 15 units on an acre of property if there were no public water or septic?” Lynn Miller replied that such a scenario is “very unrealistic” and noted Health Department limits on septic fields would constrain development density.
The bill, as amended during prior meetings and discussed April 7, allows redevelopment countywide for certain procedural incentives but retains the higher density bonus only within specified General Development Plan policy areas. Evelyn and administration staff said the amendment that opened parts of the bill countywide did not extend the 22‑unit density bonus beyond policy areas; where countywide redevelopment is allowed, the parcel would generally be limited to 15 units per acre absent the density bonus.
Councilmembers also debated whether the measure reduces local planning discretion. Pickard and others sought clarification on where the bill allows residential uses in C4 and whether that would apply in sensitive or low‑growth areas; administration staff and bill sponsors repeatedly said some portions of the bill that change permitted uses remain limited to the specified policy areas.
A technical amendment (Amendment 18) correcting renumbering language was adopted unanimously before the final vote. On the final roll call the bill passed 4 in favor and 3 opposed. The aye votes were Rodman, Smith, Pickard and Hummer. The no votes were Boehlke, Spiedler and Ledbetter.
The council and administration emphasized that the ordinance aims to encourage redevelopment on existing developed parcels in places that fit Plan objectives while protecting green spaces. The administration said it will continue to work with Office of Planning and Zoning staff on implementation and clarifications councilmembers requested.
Votes and next steps: Bill 2-25 becomes county law as amended. Administration staff said they will meet with planning and zoning staff and interested councilmembers to address implementation details and any follow‑up items identified during the hearing.
