Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers, residents clash over CGO-to-housing changes in CB 43 hearing
Summary
A public hearing on CB 43, which would permit conversion of Commercial General Office (CGO) properties to mixed-use or residential development, drew developers who argued conversions are appropriate and neighbors and attorneys who warned the bill is premature without companion actions and public hearings ordered by the court.
CB 43, a proposal to amend uses permitted in the county'wide Commercial General Office (CGO) zone to encourage conversion of vacant office buildings to housing and mixed uses, generated procedural objections and substantive debate at a public hearing.
Developers and property owners described how CGO corridors are flanked by residential neighborhoods and said allowing conversions can revitalize ageing office parks. "Townhouses are a permitted use," one developer said, urging the council to permit conversions with appropriate review and grandfathering of applications filed before an effective date.
Opponents and property-rights counsel argued the measure is premature because companion zoning language (CB 15) was not yet before the full council following court proceedings that struck some amendments; they asked the council to defer CB 43 until the legal questions and required companion actions are resolved. Attorneys said a prior court remand required a public hearing on a specific amendment and recommended that CB 43 not proceed until CB 15 is finalized.
Council members asked for legal clarification and counsel Raj Kumar recited the court's holdings, noting which amendments were stricken and which were affirmed. Counsel said the language in CB 43 tracks the portions of CB 15 that the judge affirmed but acknowledged there was disagreement about whether certain code language currently exists in the ordinance.
Speakers requested grandfathering language for plans filed before an effective date and asked that the council ensure the proper sequencing of companion bills. The council deferred final action pending legal and procedural clarification and counsel's guidance on the effect of the court's order and the appropriate path forward.
