gaithersblog.net

Goings on in Gaithersburg, Maryland

October 24th, 2006

Recent articles about immigration in Maryland

In reading various news sites over the past few days, I’ve encountered a few interesting articles I’d like to highlight:

  • Poll watchers split on Hispanic turnout, By Keyonna Summers, The Washington Times

    Hispanic rights activists and immigration-policy researchers disagree on how many Hispanics will turn out to vote on Nov. 7.

    Advocates say Hispanics are encouraged by rallies last spring and motivated by local government efforts to limit day-laborer practices and housing of illegal aliens. Researchers argue that the rallies had little effect.

    Wilma Linares, of the immigrant advocacy group CASA of Maryland, said local politicians have ignored immigrants’ concerns about affordable housing, health care, education and immigration reform, and that Hispanics will respond on Election Day.

    “We want our politicians to understand that … we have 90,000 Latinos who are capable of voting in Maryland alone and we are going to do everything we can for them to get out and vote for those candidates who are really looking to improve their response to the issues that we’re interested in,” Miss Linares said last week at “Your Vote Is Your Voice,” a nonpartisan campaign to rally immigrant and black voters.

  • Latinos’ power in numbers, By Tom Dunkel, Sun Reporter

    Democrat Thomas Perez, the Montgomery County councilman who was forced out of the state attorney general’s race when a court ruled that he did not have sufficient legal experience in Maryland, is involved in voter registration efforts on behalf of Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley, who hopes to unseat Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.

    Both of Perez’s parents emigrated from the Dominican Republic. His father became an American citizen almost immediately. His mother waited about 60 years. The reason for her change of heart was the momentum shift toward stricter immigration policies that started in the late 1990s.

    Perez contends that thousands of Marylanders like his mother have awakened politically. That might be a partisan opinion, but what’s certain is that the Latino community traditionally has been less predictable in its voting allegiances than other ethnic groups: About 53 percent are registered Democrats, with Republicans and independents about evenly split.

    What if that math changes? In a statewide contest for governor or U.S. senator, that pool of fluid votes - now about 95,000 strong - could be decisive if it coalesces in larger-than-normal numbers behind a particular candidate.

    But the specter of Herndon, Va., hangs over Gaithersburg. In May three of that town’s councilmen were bounced from office for being too day-labor friendly.

    Census figures from 2000 showed that Gaithersburg is 20 percent Latino, but some estimates run twice that high. There’s a substantial visual presence, from strip malls with purely Spanish-speaking clientele to the large numbers of Latinos walking and riding bicycles downtown. Non-Latinos seem to be on a step quota: They glide by in cars, but infrequently stroll downtown streets.

    Stephen Schreiman, who belongs to an anti-immigration citizens watchdog group, is the most vocal Gaithersburgian critic. He wants nothing to do with any politician perceived as immigration-friendly or amenable to day-labor sites.

    “It’s very personal,” says Schreiman. “It’s directly affecting my way of life.”

    Roy Passin says uncontrolled immigration adversely affects his business. He owns Roy’s Place, a saloon-like restaurant decorated with vintage campaign posters, movie memorabilia and beer signs that has been a fixture on the edge of Olde Towne for more than 35 years.

    Latino men with too much free time to kill, he says, illegally park in his lot, loiter near the property, get drunk, smash his security lights and basically spoil the ambience.

    “In certain ways,” says Passin, 84, the influx has changed Gaithersburg “a hell of a lot.” And, to his mind, generally not for the better.

  • Panel Aims to Blunt Problems Brought on by Rise in Immigration, By David J. Silverman, Capital News Service

    Local officials from Maryland’s smaller towns suggested on Friday that more Spanish language resources are needed to cope with the increasing number of immigrants in their communities.

    “The debate about English-only really is irrelevant here,” said Mayor Adam Ortiz of Edmonston, a town in Prince George’s County. “We have got to communicate key information, particularly about public safety and particularly about the health, safety and welfare of this community.”

    Kim Propeack, director of community organizing and political action at CASA of Maryland, an advocacy group for the state’s Latino community, recommended using Spanish language translators at public hearings and similar events to boost civic activism among immigrants.

    She said translators are one of many options for dealing with immigrants that achieve optimal results without “demonizing” people.

    Some in attendance weren’t convinced.

    “To say that we all need to learn Spanish is a bunch of bologna,” Anna Marie Angolia, vice chairman of the Cottage City Town Commission, said after the meeting.

    John A. Schaffer, a councilman from New Carrollton, said that the biggest problem stemming from immigration in his community is overcrowding in homes.

    “We need to stop single family homes from having 31 people in them,” he said, noting that additions to many of the single family homes in his community were destroying the city’s ambiance. The panel agreed that more information was needed to inform city and town legislators on how they can enforce building codes.

October 24th, 2006

11/01/06 Tentative Planning Commission Agenda (Update 2, no longer tentative)

Update 2: All the background materials, except for the 10/18 minutes, have now been posted, and the City has removed the "tentative" label on the agenda.

Update: a few of the background materials have been posted. I’ve linked them below. Also, the 348 Tschiffely Square Road item has been removed from the agenda.

The City has put up a tentative agenda for the November 1, 2006 meeting of the Planning Commission. Note that the APFO and the Affordable Housing Requirements are both on the agenda. No background materials are yet available.


APPROVAL OF MINUTES

October 18, 2006 , Planning Commission Meeting
TBA - Background Material (pdf format)

RECORD PLATS CONSENT

AFP-06-045 — Kentlands 348 Tschiffely Square Road
MXD Zone
(Tertandi Residence)
2-Story Addition
AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Removed from agenda

AFP-06-046 — Pheasant Run 242 Perrywinkle Lane
R-90 Cluster
(Stang Residence)
192-Sq.Ft. Sunroom Addition
AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format)

RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL

T-377 — Ordinance to amend Chapter 24 of the City Code, entitled, "Zoning," so as to create a new Article XV, entitled, "Adequate Public Facilities," so as to require that public facilities be deemed adequate to serve development which is subject to various land use and development approvals and to set forth applicable procedures and standards for the determination thereof and a regulation establishing traffic impact study standards
Background Material (pdf format)

T-379 — Two alternate ordinances to amend Chapter 24 of the City Code, entitled, Zoning," so as to create a new Article XVI, entitled, " Affordable Housing Requirements," so as to require the inclusion of Moderately Priced Dwelling Units and Work Force Housing Units in new residential developments
Background Material (pdf format)

SITE PLANS

SP-06-0010 — 17 Walker Avenue
R-90 Zone (Ryan Residence)
Alteration to Nonconforming Structure
FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format)

SP-06-0007 — Washingtonian South Seven
MXD Zone
9711 Washingtonian Boulevard
Two Office Buildings and Garage
FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format)

AFP-06-036– Kentlands General Store
MXD Zone
4 Kent Gardens Circle
6,000-Sq.Ft. General Store and Office and 3-Story Residential Unit
AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format)

AFP-06-034 — 102 N. Summit Avenue
CBD Zone
(Coffee and Ice Cream Shop)
Furniture and Fixture Layout
AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format)

AFP-06-048 — Sustaining Word Ministry
CBD Zone
620 East Diamond Avenue
Reuse from Office to Congregational
AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format)

October 24th, 2006

10/23/06 Work Session Early Report (updated)

Update: The video of this session is now available.

At tonight’s work session, there was only a single topic, permitted densities in residential zones. Although the issue was ostensibly concern that the densities permitted in some zones was too high, what I saw, watching the work session, was that it was all about the subtext.

Most of the older, “Euclidean” zones used in the City were devised many decades ago. Since that time there has been much change in planning theory, and more recently Euclidean zoning has fallen out of favor, especially in Gaithersburg. Recent large developments such as Kentlands, Lakelands, and now Crown Farm, have been developed as “floating“, or mixed-use zones. Generally, the new neo-traditional, “new urbanism” communities such as Kentlands are in the “MXD” zone. Other floating zones have been created, such as CD (corridor development) for the MD355 corridor, and CBD (central business district) for Olde Towne. At some point (apparently 1999), the Council created an alternative approach to the existing Euclidean zones, called the “traditional neighborhood development”, or “TND” option. As described in the background materials,

The exception to the scenario outlined above would be if a developer requested to build townhouses in the R-20 zone under the traditional neighborhood development (TND) option pursuant to Section 24-22.3 of the City Code (attached). Under the TND option, the Planning Commission could modify green space, lot size, and setback requirements that could result in coming closer to the 21.5 units per acre density. It should be noted that the TND option is not “by right” and can only be approved at the discretion of the Planning Commission.

This TND option gives considerable flexibility to the developer and the Planning Commission, and in some ways it almost turns one of these older Euclidean zones into a miniature MXD zone. And there, as it turns out, lies the rub. This flexibility lies with the Planning Commission, not the Mayor and Council. In any other circumstance, the rezoning of a parcel would have to be approved by the Mayor and Council. Although the implementation of the TND option is not a formal rezoning, in many ways it can have the same effect as a rezoning. The Mayor, at least, seemed somewhat concerned about the Mayor and Council’s lack of input into this quasi-rezoning process, and the possibility that the Planning Commission could approve a project with a density greater than, and green space requirements less than what the Mayor and Council would prefer.

I got the sense that the Mayor was largely on his own with this concern. By and large, it seemed to me that the Council and the Planning commission thought that the flexibility was good, and Ms. Edens pointed out that there may be legal reasons why this control would reside exclusively with the Planning Commission. It was stated that the TND option had so far been used sparingly, and only in infill situations where the new project would have been out of place in the context of the other structures around it. It seemed possible, however, that some major redevelopment projects could ask to take advantage of the TND option in the future, especially given the age of the developments in many of these older Euclidean zones. Two members of the public spoke, both in favor of retaining the ability to build innovative but densely urban projects in the City. The meeting concluded with instruction to staff to work with the Planning Commission to study the issue a bit more.