Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee Meeting - May 12, 2026

County Council & Boards — Tuesday, May 12, 2026

BodyPrince Georges County, Maryland

SessionCounty Council & Boards

DateTuesday, May 12, 2026

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 28:03

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

0:02

Good afternoon.

0:04

Calling plan in housing and economic development committee to order.

0:09

It's May 12th at one o'clock.

0:10

Can we please call the roll?

0:12

Chair Brigade.

0:13

Present.

0:14

Councilmember Denoga.

0:15

Present.

0:16

Councilmember Olsen.

0:17

Here.

0:17

Three members present at Roll Call.

0:22

All right.

0:23

First on our agenda is the ordinance concerning use regulation daycare centers for children.

0:30

CB 35.

0:32

Can we get um turn it over to Miss Marina Hightower?

0:35

Yes.

0:36

Good afternoon, uh, committee chair Blige and members of the PHED uh committee.

0:42

Uh as uh committee chair Black mentioned, CB 35 2026 will be discussed today.

0:48

This bill uh will increase access uh to child care facilities by removing special exception uh approval in all zones, exempting uh the daycare centers from detailed site plan approval, notifying the community about proposed centers, eliminating minimum parking requirements in transit oriented zones, reducing parking uh requirements in certain activity zones, and allowing our alternative parking compliance in other zones.

1:16

The planning board voted to support the legislation.

1:19

Their letter and technical staff report are on pages 14 through 25.

1:24

Their staff are also here because their technical staff report recommended some amendments that they would like to go over with the committee.

1:32

Uh uh our Chief Zoning here and examiner submitted a memorandum, which is on page 30.

1:38

She had uh a few technical amendments.

1:41

Uh there were no uh uh public uh comments, but there is one person here uh signed up to speak on the legislation.

1:50

Thank you.

1:52

All right, um next, um let's hear from our sponsor.

1:58

And is the sponsor here?

2:00

The sponsor on her way a few minutes.

2:03

Oh, she's running late.

2:04

Okay.

2:05

Um well, and since she's on her way, that's okay.

2:09

Let's let's turn it over to the um committee staff.

2:14

Yes.

2:14

Uh that would be uh Miss Hernandez Fernandez uh for legal.

2:20

Yeah, good um good afternoon, uh Madam Chair.

2:23

Uh the ops law had the opportunity to review.

2:26

Um we do find it to be legally sufficient um and agree with the technical amendments um that were um added by the many uh madam zoning hearing examiner, um which specifically um to bracket out on page five uh the special exception standards that they're being asked to refer to.

2:47

All right, and uh so now we are we're still waiting for the sponsor.

2:53

Um, and I think that do we have another bill?

2:57

Madam Chair, if I may, may I ask the planning staff to come up to the okay?

3:01

Well, parking planning can come up and give the and comment if the if madam uh chief uh zoning here and examiner would like to come up and discuss her uh amendments because she had one additional amendment beside the technical amendment on page five.

3:15

Got it, got it, got it.

3:16

Thank you, madam.

3:29

On with the red light.

3:31

Ah, okay.

3:31

David Warner, principal counsel, thank you, committee.

3:34

Um yeah, we just wanted to discuss briefly a little background on the recommendations from the planning board.

3:41

Um we had talked a little bit about them uh informally with the um with the sponsor, um, but I'll just go through a couple of the quick ones.

3:50

One, we felt like a detailed site plan exemption is not necessary because um any uh business that is uh trying to build a uh uh a building of 25,000 square feet or less will not need a detailed site plan, so you don't need an exemption for that.

4:09

But if one were so big as to be over 25,000 square feet, which is approximately the size of the lightle over there, you probably would want a detailed site plan for that.

4:18

So we thought that exemption uh didn't need to be in the bill.

4:23

Um the second thing we pointed out was the uh uh the um uh the provision for notice.

4:32

And uh I just wanted to kind of run through the three reasons we have notice in the zoning ordinance.

4:39

One, we have notice in the zoning ordinance to protect people's due process rights, of course.

4:44

Uh notice right to a hearing if you're gonna uh regulate their property.

4:49

Uh we also have notice in the zoning ordinance so that uh members of the public know that there's a development coming their way that they're gonna be able to speak on at a public hearing at some point.

5:01

Um this provision, though, because the proposal is to make this use permitted, there will be no opportunity to speak.

5:11

So uh giving people in a neighborhood the right to notice that a daycare center is coming, we think is going to be frustrating for a member of the public because they're going to get notice that this use is coming that the council's determined is permitted, and they're gonna have no right to say anything about it.

5:28

You're just letting them know.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Tourism Promotion██████████████████████████████████████38%

Zoning And Land Use████████████████████████████████████36%

Procedural████████████12%

Affordable Housing██████████10%

Economic Development████4%

Summary of Proceedings

Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee Meeting - May 12, 2026

This meeting of the Prince George's County Council's Planning, Housing and Economic Development (PHED) Committee on May 12, 2026, covered two main agenda items: a legislative bill (CB-035-2026) to expand daycare access by easing zoning regulations, and a budget worksession for Experience Prince George's, the county's current destination marketing organization. The committee voted to hold the daycare bill to allow the sponsor to review proposed amendments, engaged in discussion about the significant budget cuts and planned replacement of Experience Prince George's with a new entity, Destination Prince George's.

Public Comments & Testimony

Bradley Farrar (public speaker) expressed support for CB-035-2026 but requested an important clarification: the bill’s definition of “daycare center for children” currently excludes recreational before- and after-school programs. He argued that for working families, before- and after-care are child care, not recreation, and asked the committee to amend the definition to include those programs. He noted the bill already preserves safeguards for licensing, outdoor play, fencing, lighting, and drop-off/pickup.

Discussion Items

CB-035-2026 – Day Care Centers for Children: Committee staff summarized the bill, which would allow daycare centers as a permitted use in all zones (removing special exception and detailed site plan requirements), provide community notification, reduce parking minimums in transit-oriented and activity zones, and allow alternative parking compliance in other zones. The Planning Board supported the bill but recommended technical amendments: removing the detailed site plan exemption (since sites under 25,000 sq ft are already exempt, and larger projects would benefit from review), eliminating the notice provision (since there would be no public hearing for a permitted use), and correcting a parking citation to refer to existing right-of-way use rules. The Zoning Hearing Examiner also submitted technical amendments. The bill sponsor, Vice Chair Oriadha, arrived late and requested a hold to review all amendments, including the public testimony request to expand the definition. The sponsor noted ongoing state-level work on before/after-school care and was open to including the provision. Councilmember Dernoga highlighted the Planning Board's point about the detailed site plan exemption being unnecessary.
Budget Worksession – BU 2026-53 Experience Prince George's: David Noto, Legislative Budget and Policy Analyst, presented the FY27 proposed budget for Experience Prince George's. The county is transitioning to a new destination marketing organization, Destination Prince George's, which will receive $1 million in FY27. The proposed budget for Experience Prince George's is $729,100, a decrease of $914,000, mainly due to the planned replacement. The agency is funded over 80% by a county grant and receives at least 5% of hotel/motel tax (estimated $69,100 in FY27, up $6,000). Noto noted an error in the budget book regarding the hotel tax revenue amount. The agency is eliminating a position and converting another to part-time. He cautioned that fully defunding Experience Prince George's cannot occur until county law is changed and the state recognizes Destination Prince George's. Tracy Benjamin, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer for Economic Development, explained the county executive’s decision to refresh the DMO, citing plans for a nationwide search for a new CEO, creating a nonprofit and bylaws for Destination Prince George's, and offering employment to current employees. Councilmember Adams-Stafford asked about branding and a promotional video for the county, noting that current promotion focuses on National Harbor and the stadium, missing other assets. Benjamin responded that branding and a comprehensive video would be job one for the new DMO, and that the county has many assets (wineries, sports, entertainment, transit). Discussion also touched on the need for a unified campaign.

Key Outcomes

CB-035-2026: A motion by Vice Chair Oriadha, seconded by Councilmember Olson, to hold the bill in committee was carried by a vote of 4-0 (Chair Blagey, Oriadha, Dernoga, Olson in favor; Councilmember Adams-Stafford absent). The sponsor will review all proposed amendments (from the Planning Board, Zoning Hearing Examiner, and the public testimony request) and bring a revised version to the next PHED meeting.
Budget Worksession (BU 2026-53): No vote was taken. The committee held an overview and discussion. The committee did not approve or reject the budget, but the discussion informed future actions. The meeting adjourned on a motion by Councilmember Adams-Stafford, seconded by Councilmember Olson, carried 4-0 (Oriadha absent at that time).

Meeting Transcript

Good afternoon. Calling plan in housing and economic development committee to order. It's May 12th at one o'clock. Can we please call the roll? Chair Brigade. Present. Councilmember Denoga. Present. Councilmember Olsen. Here. Three members present at Roll Call. All right. First on our agenda is the ordinance concerning use regulation daycare centers for children. CB 35. Can we get um turn it over to Miss Marina Hightower? Yes. Good afternoon, uh, committee chair Blige and members of the PHED uh committee. Uh as uh committee chair Black mentioned, CB 35 2026 will be discussed today. This bill uh will increase access uh to child care facilities by removing special exception uh approval in all zones, exempting uh the daycare centers from detailed site plan approval, notifying the community about proposed centers, eliminating minimum parking requirements in transit oriented zones, reducing parking uh requirements in certain activity zones, and allowing our alternative parking compliance in other zones. The planning board voted to support the legislation. Their letter and technical staff report are on pages 14 through 25. Their staff are also here because their technical staff report recommended some amendments that they would like to go over with the committee. Uh uh our Chief Zoning here and examiner submitted a memorandum, which is on page 30. She had uh a few technical amendments. Uh there were no uh uh public uh comments, but there is one person here uh signed up to speak on the legislation. Thank you. All right, um next, um let's hear from our sponsor. And is the sponsor here? The sponsor on her way a few minutes. Oh, she's running late. Okay. Um well, and since she's on her way, that's okay. Let's let's turn it over to the um committee staff. Yes. Uh that would be uh Miss Hernandez Fernandez uh for legal. Yeah, good um good afternoon, uh Madam Chair. Uh the ops law had the opportunity to review. Um we do find it to be legally sufficient um and agree with the technical amendments um that were um added by the many uh madam zoning hearing examiner, um which specifically um to bracket out on page five uh the special exception standards that they're being asked to refer to. All right, and uh so now we are we're still waiting for the sponsor. Um, and I think that do we have another bill? Madam Chair, if I may, may I ask the planning staff to come up to the okay? Well, parking planning can come up and give the and comment if the if madam uh chief uh zoning here and examiner would like to come up and discuss her uh amendments because she had one additional amendment beside the technical amendment on page five. Got it, got it, got it. Thank you, madam. On with the red light. Ah, okay. David Warner, principal counsel, thank you, committee. Um yeah, we just wanted to discuss briefly a little background on the recommendations from the planning board. Um we had talked a little bit about them uh informally with the um with the sponsor, um, but I'll just go through a couple of the quick ones. One, we felt like a detailed site plan exemption is not necessary because um any uh business that is uh trying to build a uh uh a building of 25,000 square feet or less will not need a detailed site plan, so you don't need an exemption for that.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com