Council holds CB 92 on flagship project overlay zone, forms work group for review

Prince George's County Council’s Committee of the Whole on Sept. 7 introduced CB 92, a bill to regulate subdivision of land within a proposed “flagship project” overlay zone intended to speed transformative redevelopment at signature sites including 6 Flags America, the Washington Commanders stadium site and Morgan Boulevard, and voted to advance the bill with no committee recommendation while a council work group reviews the measure.

The bill’s sponsor briefed the committee that CB 92 would “regulate the subdivision of land within the flagship project overlay zone to facilitate transformative redevelopment of signature sites in Prince George’s County.” Planning staff told the committee the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission had taken no position on CB 92 because the companion zoning bill (LDR 153-2024) has not yet had a public hearing before the planning board.

County executive office staff said the administration expects the overlay approach to streamline approvals for three targeted projects — Morgan Boulevard, the stadium site and 6 Flags — and described a goal of achieving “shovel-ready” approvals and permitting within roughly six months. The administration compared the approach to prior targeted development efforts such as National Harbor and MGM.

Environmental and community speakers urged caution. “The Prince George’s County Sierra Club request that the county council place a hold on CB 92 20 25,” said Jeffrey Collins, vice chair of the Prince George’s Sierra Club, citing the need for more public transparency and a fuller review of the companion zoning ordinance. Resident Janet Gingold, who said she lives near the 6 Flags property, urged that any flagship project be “a model of sustainability” and asked that nearby conservation areas such as Beltwoods be protected.

Members pressed planning and legal staff on how properties would be designated and what role the council would retain. David Warner of Park and Planning told the committee, “They’re designated in the zoning bill, which isn’t before you right now. But in the zoning bill, it designates the specific properties that would be subject to the overlay zone.” Counsel answered that whether the district council retains review authority will depend on what the zoning bill ultimately specifies.

County counsel staff noted a separate procedural constraint under state law: “Your state law under the Land Use Article requires you to give 30 days notice for a subdivision regulation change,” and explained advertisement timing and the council’s legislative calendar could limit when the bills could be finalized.

Chair Burrows said, given outstanding questions, the council would introduce CB 92 with no committee recommendation and asked for volunteers to form a small work group to meet with Park and Planning attorneys and administration staff before the next Tuesday. Councilmember Watson moved to hold the bill for further review and Councilmember Blaguay seconded; later the chair moved a formal “no recommendation” introduction, seconded by Councilmember Harrison. The roll call on the committee recommendation registered 10 ayes and the motion carried.

The council’s next step is for the designated work group to meet with Park and Planning and administration attorneys to review the draft zoning and subdivision language line by line before the bill is scheduled for further action or a final vote.