Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears planning board candidate interviews; introduces several zoning and map amendments
Summary
The council interviewed three planning board applicants and introduced a zoning text amendment and two map amendments, with public hearings and future actions scheduled. Candidates discussed housing affordability, equity, infrastructure and recusal/conflict rules.
The Montgomery County Council conducted interviews with three candidates for upcoming vacancies on the Planning Board and introduced zoning and map items related to development review and land use.
The council heard from incumbent Planning Board member Ms. Pedeman and two applicants — Miss Elliott and Mr. Schlichting — about their qualifications and views on the board’s role in development approvals, master plan drafting, and zoning policy. Candidates emphasized housing affordability, implementation of Thrive Montgomery 2050, infrastructure capacity, and centering racial equity in planning decisions.
During the interviews, candidates described their relevant experience: Miss Elliott said she brings nearly 20 years of urban planning and land‑use experience, including development review and racial equity analyses in Washington, D.C.; Ms. Pedeman cited more than four decades in county public service, permitting, and parks capital delivery; and Mr. Schlichting described an architecture background, real estate development experience, and prior municipal planning roles in Gaithersburg. Each candidate said they were prepared to devote time to planning board duties.
Candidates and councilmembers discussed how the planning board balances project reviews with master planning, emphasizing the need for community engagement and implementable recommendations. Several candidates urged modernizing zoning rules to accommodate diverse housing types, protect environmental and transportation capacity, and align investment in schools, parks and utilities with growth. Ms. Pedeman referenced support for a Uniform Infrastructure Task Force to explore equitable infrastructure funding.
Potential conflicts and availability were raised: Miss Elliott said she represents land‑use clients in another jurisdiction and would recuse herself from county matters involving her firm’s clients and estimated recusals of about 15–20% of cases; Mr. Schlichting said he would resign a current Gaithersburg board appointment if it were deemed a conflict. Ms. Pedeman said she had no conflicts and was already serving on the board.
Separately, the council introduced zoning and map amendments for district council consideration: Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) 25‑08 concerning legacy landscape contractors in the RC zone was introduced by Councilmember Mink and scheduled for a public hearing on July 15, 2025 at 1:30 p.m. The measure would clarify how the Department of Permitting Services measures legacy landscape uses and would allow a one‑time correction to return a footprint to its original square footage if a violation is identified. Local Map Amendment H‑156 (property on Standish Place) was introduced and tentatively scheduled for council action on June 17, 2025; a corrective map amendment H‑158 (Old Georgetown Road) was also introduced with a July 15, 2025 public hearing. The council placed the consent calendar and adjourned for a noon meeting with the Maryland Association of Counties before returning for afternoon public hearings.
No final appointments to the planning board were recorded in the public transcript; the council said clerks would follow up on next steps.
