#EXPLAINER: Why was the June 16, 2022 Hearing for the Ellicott Mill Redevelopment Plan Postponed?

Peter Gutwald, Director
Department of Permits, Approvals & Inspections
County Office Building
111 W. Chesapeake Avenue Towson, MD 21204

Re: PAI Case Nos. 01-0616 & 2021-0291-SPHASA
Ellicott Mill Project

Dear Mr. Gutwald:

This is to inform you that I am granting a request for postponement in this case that was made by Ms. Julia Nicoll, a community member who participated in the Community Input Meetings (“CIM”). As you are aware, the Hearing Officer Hearing (“HOH”) is scheduled for tomorrow and Friday, June 16 and 17. This postponement request was initially addressed to you and was sent by e-mail yesterday, June 14, 2022 at l :52 p.m. I informed Ms. Nicoll that under the Office of Administrative Hearings’ Rules of Procedure because the postponement request was made within 5 days of the scheduled HOH, that the request should have been directed to me, the Administrative Law Judge. I also informed her that, in accordance with the Rules, I was providing a copy of her request to Jennifer Busse, counsel for the Developer, so that Ms. Busse could respond to the request if she chose to do so.

The primary basis for the requested postponement is that when Ms. Nicoll reviewed the Development Plan file, as was her right under Baltimore County Code (“BCC”) Sec. 32-4-227(c), there were no minutes from the second CIM, and that these minutes are required under BCC Sec. 32-4-217(d)(ii). I note that another community member, Ms. Winnie Carpenter, also complained to OAH regarding these missing CIM minutes. Both point out that these minutes are intended to provide an important contemporaneous record of the CIM, in order for the community, the county agencies, and the developer to understand the status of the issues raised, and whether or not they have been resolved— in part or in full—going into the HOH. This seems like the proverbial case where “no good deed goes unpunished” because it was laudable that the Development Manager, Lloyd Moxley, granted the community’s request for a second CIM. However, that second CIM was subject to the same regulations as the first, including the requirement that contemporaneous minutes be taken and placed in the file.

Ms. Busse did respond in opposition to the requested postponement by e-mail at 5:17 p.m. yesterday. She argues that the community has not been substantially prejudiced by the lack of CIM minutes and that any unresolved issues can and will be resolved at the HOH. She avers that “[t]he development process is an evolving one and neither Ms. Nicoll, Ms. Carpenter nor anyone else has been deprived of any information.” This is just not true—they were deprived of the CIM minutes. At 2:00 a.m. this morning Ms. Nicoll responded to Ms. Busse’s opposition e-mail in point- by-point fashion, again stressing that the County Code’s mandatory provisions concerning the CIM minutes were simply not followed, and that the community has been prejudiced in preparing for the HOH in this major development case.

Late this morning the Project Manager, Darryl Putty, belatedly submitted 16 pages of minutes from the second CIM. It is unclear when these minutes were created but it is undisputed that they were not placed in the development file until today. Obviously, I have not had time to review these minutes in detail but they clearly cover a wide range of topics and identify numerous unresolved issues. The community (and the ALJ) was entitled to have these minutes, at the latest, 5 days in advance of the HOH, as required by BCC Sec. 32-4-226(d). I note that this code section also requires that several other items are to be provided to the Hearing Officer in writing, including, but not limited to, “(ii) Agency responses to the unresolved comments raised or conditions proposed or requested at the community input meeting.” There is no such documentation in the development file. These requirements are mandatory under the express language of the Code.

Given these deficiencies, I believe I have no choice but to postpone the scheduled hearing in order to provide the community the opportunity to adequately review and digest the CIM minutes prior to the HOH. I believe it would also be appropriate for the relevant agencies to provide written comments stating whether, in their view, there are any unresolved issues that need to be addressed at the HOH. This way, the ALJ and all parties will be apprised in advance of the scope and focus of the HOH, as envisioned by the statutory framework.

By copy of this letter, I request that Kristen Lewis update the County webpage to indicate that the HOH has been postponed and will be rescheduled. The HOH will be rescheduled at the earliest possible date, factoring in that the property will have to be re-posted and advertised.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

PAUL M. MAYHEW
Managing Administrative Law Judge
For Baltimore County

PMM:dlw

Non-Affiliation Disclaimer

This article was published as a public service to educate and inform the community. Videos and blog posts in this series are not sponsored, pre-approved, or reviewed by the subject(s) or by any affiliated organization before publishing, unless stated otherwise.

The owner of this website declares no affiliation, sponsorship, nor any financial partnership with Terra Nova Ventures, LLC.

Terra Nova Ventures, LLC does not sponsor or endorse MKCREATIVE or any of its products, services, or comments.