Planning Zoning Commission
('Tarroll (T on (imrcr I
2223 North (Sunlcr Street
Maryland 131 1.37
i 10~li8ti~i31~13

Ml) Relay service 

Richard J. Soisson, Chair
L. l?icatwood, Vlt?t? (Thair
Alt?t' \"co
liugcnc (Inhale
infh?cy ?others
ll)unicl Ii. Hoff
Janirc R. lx'lirloicr, 
Stephen A \V'aliil?a, 132x~officio
Lynda I). Secretary

 

October 16, 201.8

The Board ofCounty Commissioners
of Carroll County

RE: The Board?s Decision. to Rescind the Remand of the Freedom Plan
to The Planning and Zoning Commission

Dear Commissioners:

We write this letter to you to raise serious concerns about the process the Board of County
Commissioners (?Board?) utilized in remanding the 2017 Freedom Plan to the Planning and Zoning
Commission and, 10 months later, rescinding that remand after many hours of work by the Planning
and Zoning Commission, the staff, and members of the public. This rescission jeopardizes the plan
you purport to ?nalize. It is also highly disrespectful to this Commission as well as the county staff
and the public, and is simply not acceptable to us as we go forward.

The facts are fairly simple. On July 18, 2017, the Planning and Zoning Commission
(?Commission?) voted to adopt a resolution of approval of the Freedom Community Comprehensive
Plan On October 3, 2017, the Board remanded the Plan to the Commission for further
consideration. On November 16, 2017, the Board sent a letter to the Commission in which it clari?ed
the issues for which it requested further analysis by the Commission. Thereafter, the Commission
spent many hours seeking to comply with the requests of the Board as set forth in the November 16,
2017 letter. The Commission, as always, was supported by the good and substantial work of the
county staff. The Commission spent many hours interacting with the public and seeking public
comment and listening to public presentations consistent with the instructions from the Board
concerning its remand. The Commission also met with the Board in joint meetings to seek guidance
and input from the Board so as to ensure that the Commission?s actions were consistent with the
Board?s instructions and desires. On August 23, 2018, prior to the Commission?s completion of the
remand, the Board rescinded its October 3, 2017 remand.

The effect of the rescission of the remand was to, quite simply, render irrelevant the work done
by the Commission, the county staff, and the public. The Board made clear that they were accepting
back the 2017 plan that had been presented to them 9 months earlier. The work performed in the
intervening 9 months was, obviously, not part of the plan that had been previously approved. As
discussed below, the Board?s action was inconsistent with its reasons given for the remand in the ?rst
place, was highly irregular, was inconsistent with the Board?s reasons given for the rescission of the
remand and was profoundly inconsiderate to those that had taken seriously the remand and instructions
by the Board.

The Board of County Commissioners
Of Carroll County

October 16, 2018

Page 2

The basis given by the Board for the rescission of the remand, a highly unusual procedural
action, as stated in the Board?s hearing at the time of taking such action, was primarily twofold 1) that
the Board did not believe they gave the Commission good instructions and 2) that the Board?s highest
priority was getting the plan completed before Commissioners Howard and term expired.
Neither of these reasons is actually supported by the facts or the record.

First, the Board gave explicit instructions to the Commission shortly after the plan was
remanded. In the Board?s letter of November 16, 2017, the Board spelled out with precision what its
expectations were with respect to the remand. Thereafter, joint meetings were held with the Board
which provided opportunities for the Board to clarify instructions to the Commission. The
Commission, with the able assistance of county staff, closely monitored the progress of the completion
of the items as instructed by the Board. In short, explicit instructions were provided by the Board, a
process was in place for joint meetings for additional clari?cation and instruction by the Board and the
Commission executed consistent with the Board?s instructions and monitored compliance throughout
the remand process. Therefore, the basis provided by the Board for rescinding the remand for not
having given good instructions to the Commission is not supported by the record.

The second reason given by the Board for the rescission of the remand was that speed was the
Board?s highest priority, namely that the remand be completed. before Commissioners and
Howard completed their terms. The suggestion that this was the highest priority of the Board is
likewise without foundation. Although the original press release issued by the Board stated that the
Board would like the Commission?s work done by April 1, 201.8, the letter from the Board, following
the press release nowhere references the April 1, 2018 completion request. Indeed, the letter nowhere
sets forth any deadline. The letter also fails to indicate that completion by a date certain is the highest
priority of the Board. It is not listed as a priority at all. In joint meetings between the Commission and
the Board, which took place after April 1, 2018, the Board at no time indicated that the remand should
be rescinded because the Commission had not met the April 1, 2018 deadline, or any other deadline set
by the Board. Indeed, the Commission was left with the understanding that thoroughness was the
highest priority, not speed. Furthermore, the suggestion that this plan needed to be completed before
members of the current Board left office is entirely inconsistent with this Board?s position regarding
the county Master Plan. Quite contrary to the current Board?s position, the Board previously asked this
Commission to hold the county Master Plan, which was completed during the prior Board?s tenure,
until the new (current) Board was installed. This Board?s request was based upon their belief that the
new Board (the current Board) will be charged with implementing the Master Plan and therefore
should be the ones to vote on it. Accordingly, the suggestion that the Commission?s failure to meet a.
completion deadline was the basis for the Board?s rescission of the remand also appears to be without
foundation.

It remains clear that every action taken by the Board after rescinding the remand could have
been performed by the Board without the remand. Upon rescinding the remand, Commissioner
presented a prepackaged modi?ed plan to the Board immediately thereafter. This is
remarkable given that the Commission met jointly with the Board shortly before the rescission ofthe
remand. Commissioner failed to attend this meeting. Additionally, the Board in no way
indicated that they were working on a different plan with substantial modifications. Obviously, these
modifications could have been presented to the Commission so that they could be incorporated into the
consideration as directed by the very Board itself. Instead, these modi?cations were withheld until

CARROLL COUNTY 8t ZGNING 

Mani/ting or. he ?rr (ferret?County

The Board of County Commissioners
Of Carroll County

OCtober 16, 2018

Page 3

after the remand was rescinded. It is difficult to ascribe good faith to the Board?s actions in either
remanding the plan or rescinding the remand of the plan under these circumstances.

Given that the Commission was close to completion of the remanded plan, the Board could
simply have advised the Commission of its concern regarding timing at one of the joint meetings. The
Commission could have considered the request of speed versus thoroughness and at least been given
the opportunity to present the revised 2018 plan to the Board. This would have provided the Board
with a much better plan which took into account much of the public comment and concerns received
by the Commission and as processed by the county staff as a result of the Board?s remand. However,
the Board?s keeping their intent to rescind the remand secret, and likewise keep in secret the redra?ing
of the 2017 plan received 9 months earlier, only support the conclusion that the remand and rescission
of the remand were not done in good faith.

More to the point, the process was a sham. The process was driven by politics when it was
supposed to be insulated from politics. That is precisely why the Commission is made up of
community volunteers appointed for ?ve-year terms. There was concern previously voiced by the very
commissioners who, ironically, exploited the modi?ed statute and in the end remanded the 2017 plan
because it was politically expedient at the time.

In the end, it appears clear that the Board remanded the 2017 plan to the Commission because it
was politically expedient at the time. After much work by the Commission and the staff and the
public, the Board suddenly, and without notice, rescinded the remand. The reasons given, as described
above, are baseless. At bottom, the remand was suddenly and without warning rescinded because it
was, likewise, politically expedient. The perversion of the process undermines this Commission?s faith
in the Board and, more impeltantly, undermines the public?s faith in government. It renders irrelevant
and super?uous the work undertaken by this Commission in good faith. The conduct of the Board vis~
a-vis the undermining of the process and demonstrated lack of respect with this Commission has
greatly damaged the relationship between this Commission and the Board. It will make it much more
dif?cult to obtain volunteers to serve on this Commission and other Commissions in the future and it
has substantially eroded the trust this Commission has in the processes of the Board. In short, much
damage has been done. Whether, and to what extent, it can be repaired, will depend upon future
actions of this and the next Board. This Commission will continue to do its part in its efforts of
continued good faith service to the residents of this great county.

CARROLL COUNTY PLANNENG ZUNENG 

iWZ-?trrn a. ?erter??firtura ?for (Turin/offCounty

The Board of County Commissioners
Of Carroll County

October 16, 2018

Page 4

Respectfully submitted,
The Planning and Zoning Commission

482145986480, V. 

 

Riohard J. Soisson L. Cheatwood
Vice Chair

   
  

zw?/ 5%
.Wothars Alec Yeo Eugene A. Canale

    

COUNTY PLANNENG ZONENG EUMMESSEUN

ling a. 59 Inf-n. lure for? Carm [liltilL-U?lfy