WELCOME !
Harwood, Maryland is located in Anne Arundel County just a few miles south of Annapolis, the capital of Maryland. Extending from the Patuxent River on the west to the West River and the Chesapeake Bay on the east, it is primarily a rural residential area with a rich historical background dating back to the seventeenth century. Most residential property sold within the last eighteen months encompassed between one and six acres. Property resale prices reflect the wide variety of homes available. Prices ranged from less than $300,000 to over$1,000,000.
Harwood’s High School, Southern High School, has been recognized as a National Blue Ribbon School.
For further information on the rich history of Harwood, refer to “ Historical Perspective” in the Archives.
The Mission of the Harwood Civic Association shall be to build community awareness and spirit in the geographical area known as Harwood.
Special notice
CURRENT STATUS OF ZONING ISSUES
Since our last newsletter the Harwood Civic Association (HCA) has been active in the Comprehensive Zoning the County has conducted. The following article details that process and our involvement. Comprehensive Zoning is a decennial process, which will impact us all and the very character of South County. Our aim has been to protect the rural nature of South County, which has been a principle supported by South County residents over the years. It is work like this that makes HCA a valuable organization to area residents.
HCA thanks the County Executive John Leopold for his principled stand in vetoing sixteen misguided and egregious amendments added to the District 6 and 7 comprehensive zoning bill by Councilman Jerry Walker. The County Executive has repeatedly stated that he supports keeping South County rural and that keeping South County rural is more than a slogan but an important policy that should be respected. Mr. Leopold criticized the ill advised zoning changes passed by the County Council as sending a bad message to state officials already contemplating seizing planning control from counties. Kudos to our County Executive for standing up and being counted on this important issue.
No kudos are due to our Councilman Jerry Walker who ignored the General Development Plan and the wishes of his constituents in submitting many amendments that will negatively impact District 7 and several that will adversely impact the rural character of South County. He arrogantly ignored legal requirements and put the landowners, lobbyists for developers and other special interests ahead of the wishes of his constituents.
In another important step to protect South County, HCA
has joined several other Associations and individuals in a law suit challenging the legality of the many of County Council’s amendments to the comprehensive zoning bill for Districts 6 and 7, Bill 44-11. More detail on this litigation is contained in the following article.COMPREHENSIVE ZONING RECAP
Update. Since our last Newsletter, Spring 2011, the County Council has enacted Comprehensive Zoning in Bill 44-11. During its engagement in this long process the Harwood Civic Association (HCA) worked to "Keep South County Rural." We met with our Councilman and testified before the County Council advocating compliance with the General Development Plan and the applicable small area plans which called for preserving South County as rural. We objected to several amendments introduced by our Councilman, Jerry Walker, which would threaten the rural nature of our area. We supported County Executive Leopold's vetoes of these amendments and have joined in a lawsuit filed October 6, 2011, challenging the legality of the County Council’s regarding these amendments.
The Process: Anne Arundel County began the process of comprehensive rezoning in late 2009. In order to facilitate the process, the Council and the Office of Planning and Zoning (P&Z) determined to divide the rezoning proposals by Councilmanic District and consider them in three batches. The second batch consisted of zoning changes in Districts 6 and 7. Property owners were invited to submit applications for rezoning. During the application process, P&Z received over 90 rezoning applications.
The Office of Planning and Zoning (P&Z) published the applications online and invited public comment. P&Z then evaluated the applications. Thereafter, P&Z made recommendations on each rezoning application and incorporated its recommendations in a proposed bill, which was introduced in the County Council, which in the case of Districts 6 and 7 was Bill 44-11.
The second step of the process was a review by the Planning Advisory Board (PAB) which is an organization established by the County’s Charter and consisting of seven citizens appointed by the County Executive. The PAB held public hearings onP&Z recommendations and made its recommendations to the County Executive.
The County Council in turn held a series of public hearings on the rezoning proposals at which members of the public were afforded an opportunity to testify and submit written comments on the proposals included in the bill as well as those that were not included. Members of the County Council for Districts 6 and 7 introduced some 46 amendments, all of which made zoning changes not originally proposed by P&Z. Mr. Walker submitted the most amendments. The County Council over several meetings considered and voted on the amendments and finally adopted Bill 44-11,as amended, on August 15, 2011. The adopted bill contained 40 of the amendments introduced by Councilmen.
On August 23, 2011, the County Executive vetoed sixteen of the 40 amendments that had been adopted by the Council. On September 6, 2011, the County Council considered the County Executive’s veto message and voted to override his veto of ten of the sixteen amendments.
Amendments Harmful to the Rural Nature of South County.
While we were supportive of other organizations objections to the many amendments, we focused on those that were particularly deleterious to South County’ rural character. In our view the most egregious amendments were Amendments 25 (RA to R1 below 214 at the SW corner of Rtes 2/214); Amendment 26 (Boone's Trailer Park - RA to R5); Amendment 30 (RLD to W2 - Industrial zoning on Crandell Rd south of Galesville in a rural area); Amendment 44 (RA to C2 - commercial encroachment below MD 214 at the Rte 2/214 intersection); Amendment 45 (RA to C1at Lothian Circle). These amendments were totally inconsistent with the GDP and applicable Small Area Plan in that they would introduce high density residential commercial and industrial uses in rural areas and would lead to ripple effects that will further erode the rural nature of South County. The Lothian Circle and the MD Rte 2/214 intersection rezoning would also have a severe traffic impact on an already overloaded traffic situation.
HCA’s Involvement. HCA participated in much of the process. First we met several times with Councilman Walker and expressed our position that South County must be kept rural and against all zoning changes that would be harmful to that end. We testified and submitted written comments to the PAB. We next sent comments to the County Council and testified before that body. We then wrote the County Executive urging his veto of several amendments. We then met with the County Executive to strategize a way ahead to sustain his vetoes. Lastly we have joined the suit against the County regarding the County Council’s action on Bill 44-11.
Outcome. There were approximately 24 amendments, which P&Z objected to as inconsistent with the General Development Plan and the Small Area Plans or as constituting spot zoning. Of these, the County Executive vetoed 16 and the County Council sustained six of these vetoes. With regard to the five amendments to which HCA objected, fortunately, Mr. Leopold’s vetoes of Amendments 44 and 45 were sustained. However, the County Council overrode his vetoes of Amendments 25, 26 and 30. These amendments continue to be prejudicial to the rural character of South County.
LITIGATION
Of the five amendments negatively impacting South County that HCA objected to, three made it into law. Two amendments set a terrible precedent and could have a negative ripple effect on the zoning of adjacent land parcels. The Boones trailer park was up-zoned from RA to R5 (5 dwelling units per acre).his change would allow townhouses in an otherwise rural area and is inconsistent with the applicable Small Area Plan. A property at 733 Crandell Road was up zoned from RLD (Residential Low Density – 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres) to W2 Light Industrial District). Placing a light industrial district in an otherwise rural area sets another terrible precedent and constitutes spot zoning.
In view of the seriousness of the threat to the rural nature of South County posed by these amendments, the failure of the County Council to comply with the legal requirement for consistency with the General Development Plan, and the total disregard of the desires of his constituents by Councilman Jerry Walker, supported by the rest of the County Council, the Board of Directors of HCA agreed to support and join other Civic Associations as a party to litigation challenging the actions of the County Council.
The press release, reproduced below, of the Growth Area Network, provides additional detail on the litigation and the Complaint will be posted on the HCA website.
Citizens Sue Anne Arundel County over Rezoning
Annapolis, MD. October 5, 2011. The Growth Action Network announced today that several of its member associations had joined with a number of residents of Anne Arundel County to file a lawsuit challenging the way Anne Arundel County is going about comprehensive rezoning. The suit focuses on controversial zoning changes recently made by the County Council in Council Districts 6 and 7.
Describing the background of the suit, Ann Fligsten, Executive Director of the Growth Action Network said, "During the rezoning process, the County’s Office of Planning and Zoning received over ninety applications for rezoning in Districts 6 and 7. After reviewing those applications, the County’s Office of Planning and Zoning drafted a bill for the Council’s approval that included fifty zoning changes. That bill was supported by the County’s Planning Advisory Board, which commended Planning and Zoning for the approach it took. It came as a surprise to many, therefore, when the Council approved amendments to that bill to make an additional forty zoning changes to those that had been recommended. The County Executive vetoed sixteen of those amendments on the grounds hat they were inconsistent with the County’s General Development Plan, but the Council overrode ten of those vetoes."
According to Mike Lofton of the Harwood Civic Association, "The County’s General Development Plan, which was adopted by the County Council at the end of 2009, was the product of extensive work by the County’s planning staff and thousands of hours of citizen involvement. Maryland law requires that comprehensive rezoning be done in a manner that implements and is consistent with the General Development Plan. It is clear from what happened here that this Council chose largely to disregard the GDP and the advice of the County’s excellent professional planning staff. We believe that not only did the actions of the Council demonstrate an arrogant disrespect for the wishes of the citizens of the County, but they were in clear violation of Maryland law, and we expect the courts to reverse them."
The suit was filed in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. The plaintiffs are represented by a team of volunteer lawyers recruited by the Chesapeake Legal Alliance and headed by Russell Stevenson.