|
It was a long
day, but Council
will have to do it all over again
After
nearly two hours of frequently contentious debate and public
testimony, County Council, in a surprise move, tabled the
controversial proposed accessory dwelling unit ordinance. Also
put off until another day and evening was a measure ratifying
the Coons
administration's
freeze of some pay raises.
What's more, the lawmakers ended
up just about where they started when some members tried to set
an example by doing a bit of trimming of their own budget
proposal.
The long day wasn't a complete
washout, however, as the intrepid 13 managed to come together to
provide county government with at least $1.7 million of
additional revenue and approved without dissent the next step in
the administration's 'affordable' housing strategy.
Councilman Penrose Hollis closed
debate on the accessory dwelling units legislation on Mar. 27
with an impassioned speech in which he compared opponents of it
with those who resisted the civil rights movement 40-some years
ago.
"They swear they support
'affordable' housing, but don't put it next to them," he said.
"They have deliberately distorted [its likely effects] to build
fear."
"Their whole idea of progress is
maintaining the status quo. ... They're afraid of 'those
people'. Well, I am one of 'those people'," Hollins, who is
black and grew up in the segregated South, said.
He then moved to table the
measure and his colleagues voted unanimously to do so. Under
Council's parliamentary rules, only a sponsor can move to table,
but a majority of the members present must agree to the move.
Hollins said he did so at the behest of colleagues who
wanted some more time to confer with their constituents. A
revised version of the proposed ordinance, which had not
previously been made public, was before Council. Although he did
not make such a reference, it appeared at that point that
Hollins might not have the support of six other members that
would be necessary to enact the ordinance.
The changes in the substitute
version provided that the number of accessory dwelling units
that would be allowed could total only two-tenths of 1% of the
number of single-family detached houses in unincorporated areas
of the county, and that the requirement that the owner of the
property live there be strengthened by making that subject to a
recorded deed restriction enforceable by county government. The
limit would be about 200 new units and would grow only slowly as
the number of houses in the county is increased.
Councilman William Tansey
objected to the measure on the grounds that permitting
construction of a free-standing unit on lots of two acres or
more was equivalent of allowing such lots to be subdivided
contrary to the provision of the zoning code applicable to lots
that size. Tansey, whose château country district includes many
such lots, was supported by testimony by Rich Abbott, of the
Centreville Civic Association, who said that was the only
objection that group had to the measure.
Council president Paul Clark said
he has asked several times why it was decided to reduce the size
of lots on which free-standing units can be constructed from
three acres to two acres, "but nobody seems to want to tell me."
Councilman Joseph Reda was one of
several speakers during the session who referred to the
acknowledged fact that, contrary to code, there already are many
accessory dwelling units in the county. "We can't control what's
going on now. Why encourage it?" he said. Charles Baker, general
manager of the Department of Land Use, later testified that
"there are illegal units that we know are out there, but we
don't get [many] complaints about them." County code enforcement
is complaint-driven.
An accessory dwelling unit is
defined as virtually independent living quarters with sleeping
accommodations and a functional kitchen constructed within a
house or as an addition to it.
Councilman Robert Weiner, who
supported the measure, said that it has been a practice for
homeowners to establish such units "with everything but an oven
and a stove" to remain technically compliant with the code.
After the units are approved by a building inspector, he said,
they install such appliances frequently with a risk caused by
improper electrical wiring.
Baker described the proposed
legislation as "a very restrictive ordinance" and said it was so
drafted after extensive consultation with civic organizations.
During public testimony,
representatives of several of those groups came forward to
oppose the measure, primarily on the grounds that it would lead
to alteration of the character of suburban neighborhoods. "This
proposal will crack open the door to abuses in our community,"
said Chuck Landry, of the Council of Civic Organizations of
Brandywine Hundred. Bill Dunn, of the Milltown-Limestone Civic
Alliance, said that, contrary to the inclusive process followed
when the county rental code was crafted, the accessory dwelling
units ordinance represented "one position, one attitude from one
part of the administration."
On the other hand, Patrick Hare,
a Cornwall, Conn.-based urban planning consultant hired by the
county Department of Community Services, testified that there
have been no recorded complaints about adverse community impact
or lowered property values in any of the many jurisdictions
around the nation which allow accessory dwelling units. He said
that when such laws have been changed elsewhere, the changes
have been to make their provisions more liberal.
John Barnes, of the American
Association of Retired Persons, said that national organization
supports such legislation as a means to enable senior citizens
"to remain safe and independent in their own houses ... [and]
active in their communities."
Most of the supportive testimony
from individuals and comments by Councilwoman Stephanie
McClellan referenced specific situations in which accessory
dwelling units have enabled aged, handicapped or infirmed people
to maintain their quality of life. "Let us aging baby boomers
live in your neighborhood. ... Please don't make us retire to
government-subsidized housing," resident Usa Joslin testified.
Councilman Jea Street took
umbrage at several negative references to people who rent
housing. "The dirty word here has been 'rent-tor' [sic]," he
said.
While the early signature piece
of the administration's 'affordable' housing initiative was
tossed about upon a rough sea, another part of that effort
enjoyed smooth sailing. Hollins introduced and Council enacted,
unanimously and without discussion, a resolution establishing a
housing incentive program and appropriating $1,050,000 for it.
Designed to "support home
ownership and housing rehabilitation" in specified distressed
neighborhoods, the program provides for interest-free loans of
up to 6% of the purchase price of a house or $10,000, whichever
is lower, and interest-free loans of up to $20,000 for
rehabilitation of owner-occupied houses.
To qualify a property must meet
two of three criteria: be in a neighborhood where median house
value is below $160,000, fewer than 70% of the houses are owned
by their occupants and more than 5% of the houses have
transitioned from owners to being rental units. The Brandywine
Hundred communities among those identified in the preamble of
the resolution are Edgemoor Gardens, Hickman Row and Knollwood.
The resolution said that the
program will be financed by federal community-development money
and "local revolving funds" but does not contain the customary
fiscal note defining the fiscal impact on the county.
Clark moved and Council voted
seven-to-six to table a proposed ordinance that would have put
into effect the pay freeze that County Executive Christopher
Coons proposed for non-union county employees and the police
department's executive staff.
Clark acted after county attorney
Gregg Wilson ruled that a substitute ordinance Clark had
intended to put before Council violated the law because its
title would no longer accurately reflect its content. The
substitute would have permitted the 3.1% cost-of-living pay
increase due to be effective Apr. 1, but apply only until the
administration submitted and Council approved a new pay
schedule.
Clark told a finance committee
meeting earlier in the day that the substitute measure would
"provide a strong incentive to get the [new] pay plan to us
[quickly]." He said the administration is working on a plan
"that is fair and that we can afford."
The pay freeze is intended as a
cost-saving measure in light of the county's adverse fiscal
situation.
During Council's plenary session,
Councilman Bill Bell argued that freezing pay raises for
non-union personnel would be "unprecedented and unfair" while
increases provided by union contracts, which cannot be frozen,
take effect. He said the free would have an especially adverse
impact on employees with long service whose pensions will be
determined by the amount of their salaries during the last three
years of their employment.
Providing or not providing for
pay raises "should be done during [labor] negotiations, not
during the budget process," he said.
Although acknowledging that
tabling the measure was tantamount to not passing it because the
raise that goes into effect on Apr. 1 will be locked in for a
year, Clark moved to table "because of all the confusion"
surrounding the issue. Wilson had said that, under Council
rules, he could introduce the substitute as emergency
legislation, but Clark declined to do that.
Meanwhile, Tansey introduced an
ordinance that would freeze pay raises for members of Council's
administrative staff. He did so although Council previously, by
majority vote in committee, declined to take such action.
During the finance committee
meeting, Councilman George Smiley proposed a package of changes
in Council's budget request for the coming fiscal year, but
Council members rejected its key proposals: to reduce from
$15,000 to $10,000 the amount each member will have to finance
grants to nonprofit organizations and to do away with the
practice of providing catered dinners to members and staffers
who remain between committee meetings and the plenary session on
the evenings that Council holds its semi-monthly sessions. The
proposals would 'save' $58,500 and $10,200, respectively.
Smiley, who chairs the finance
committee, said the reductions he proposed were intended to
demonstrate that Council was doing its part to reduce spending
during a year when it most likely will vote to impose a 17%
property-tax increase. "I don't think it fair to have the
taxpayers pay for my meals," McClellan said, but she was
outvoted on that matter. Referring to office expenses, Street
said that he thought it important to maintain standards "within
the decorum that is appropriate to a government."
Members did approve shifting
$58,500, which would have matched the reduction in the grants
amounts, to individual office-expense accounts. As things now
stand, the only savings from that move will be the amounts
individual members have not spent before the end of the coming
fiscal year.
Council did approve several
increases in some of the fees for services charged by the
so-called 'row' offices. In all cases, those fees have not been
raised for several years. By office, the amounts of additional
annual revenue to be generated are: recorder of deeds, $148,000;
sheriff, $435,000; and register of wills, $750,000. In addition,
an increase in building permit fees is expected to generate
$365,000.
Clerk of the peace, the only
'row' office permitted by state law to set its own fees, was
granted county authority to do so.
All but one of those
measures were approved unanimously. Street voted against the
register of wills fee increase because he considered it "a death
tax." |