Participants in the roundtable of Baltimore County employees, builders and environmentalists that recommended changes to the county?s development approval process earlier this month say the process wasn?t as collaborative as organizers claimed.
About 85 representatives met over the last year and examined how the county could reduce the environmental impacts and construction costs of development.
The group, known as Builders for the Bay, unveiled a draft agreement June 15 that asks the county to make as many as 80 changes to its development requirements and review process within the next three years.
But an analysis of participants revealed what some called an exclusive, hand-picked group that easily reached consensus, marginalizing other participants. More than 40 percent of the roundtable represented the development industry and more than 30 percent were county employees.
Environmentalists and community representatives made up 14 percent and 13 percent, respectively.
“The whole premise of Builders for the Bay is to present an attitude that we?re doing something to save the bay,” said Douglas Celmer, who represented the Back River Neck Peninsula Community Association but has declined to sign the final agreement. “It?s window dressing so people feel good without actually doing anything.”
Baltimore County is the sixth of 12 sites in the Chesapeake Bay region to go through the program, organized by the Center for Watershed Protection, Baltimore County government, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay and the Home Builders Association of Maryland. County officials have said they are committed to making the changes suggested in the agreement.
Corinne Becker, president of the Riderwood Hills community association, said she asked roundtable organizers if she could participate, but was told the group was invitation-only.
John Alexander, a county employee who also represented the Jones Falls Watershed group, said he stopped attending meetings because he felt sidelined. In addition, the county denied him leave to attend afternoon meetings, Alexander said.
“We need to have more regulations, and certainly more review concerning environmental regulations,” Alexander said. “But I wasn?t getting a word in edgewise.”
Other environmentalists and community leaders said they were satisfied with their level of representation and said they were pleased with the final recommendations. Those include narrowing street and driveway widths, reducing parking requirements and permitting smaller lot sizes. Environmentalists encouraged buffers along all streams, new storm water management plans and stricter guidelines for the use of fees in lieu of building requirements.
“I think it?s a start,” said Teresa Moore of the Valleys Planning Council. “It?s going to need a lot of work through implementation, but I think it?s a laudable effort.”
