Planning commission issues unfavorable recommendation on citizen text amendment 25-07

The Queen Anne's County Planning Commission voted to send an unfavorable recommendation to the county commissioners on a citizen-sponsored text amendment, County Ordinance 25-07, after debate about whether to allow the applicant to revise the proposal before it advanced.

The proposal, introduced by an applicant identified in the meeting as Mr. Thompson, would have changed how transfers of development rights (TDRs) operate; the Planning Commission discussed whether the amendment should permit administrative subdivisions only or also allow lot reconfiguration. Jay Falstad of the Queen Anne's Conservation Association urged the commission to reject the draft, saying the county should not create a precedent of allowing applicants to revise deficient text amendments after submission. "Are we now going to allow every single applicant that submits a text amendment to come in and have another bite at the apple?" Falstad asked, adding that such a practice would be "an unfair system that accommodates him and leaves all of those other applicants sort of in the dark." (Jay Falstad, public comment.)

County counsel explained options available to the commission, saying commissioners could either approve or disapprove the amendment as drafted or make a motion that the applicant revise language and return for reconsideration so commissioners could review a revised draft. Counsel advised that approving or denying as drafted would either advance the ordinance to the county commissioners or cause it to die.

Commissioners debated process and precedent. One commissioner moved that the applicant revise the amendment to reduce the scope of TDRs to permit administrative subdivisions only and not reconfiguration; the chair and other commissioners discussed whether it was appropriate to require the applicant to return with revised language rather than making a recommendation without seeing the exact revised text. At a later point a motion was made and adopted to send an unfavorable recommendation to the county commissioners "as drafted." The record shows multiple commissioners voting in favor and at least one opposing vote; the commission confirmed the outcome as an unfavorable recommendation to the county commissioners.

The commission's action is a recommendation to the county commissioners; it does not itself change county code. County counsel and staff explained the county commissioners will hold a public hearing and may reach a different decision. Falstad and others said they were concerned about setting a precedent that would allow applicants to correct or substantially change citizen-sponsored submissions after introduction.

Discussion-only items that preceded the final motion included staff and counsel describing past practice on citizen-sponsored amendments, the purpose of application fees instituted to discourage unfocused submissions, and procedural options for how the commission can frame a recommendation.

Charges or next steps: the Planning Commission's unfavorable recommendation will be transmitted to the county commissioners, who will hold a public hearing and vote. The applicant may refile a new text amendment in the future.