Good afternoon uh streamlining development uh review work group members.

I believe we have about seven uh work group members who are in attendance today.

Thank you so much for attending.

Um we would like to start off by uh going through a quick discussion um of the proposed legislative uh items on the agenda.

Uh if I may, if Mr.

Hamlin is available, I'd like to turn it over to him.

Thank you so much.

Sure.

Um I personally I don't think this this part of the agenda should take very long.

You know, the the legislation was all you know substantively discussed at the last meeting.

These are just the four uh sort of legislative vehicles that would do the things that that were discussed.

Uh all of them with the exception of the ombudsman development ombudsman resolution, which is LDR 145, uh, are basically designed to just make processes more efficient, you know, by allowing sort of combined review or the timelines, you know, to proceed at the same time.

So you'll see LDR 144 and 153, those kind of go together.

153 is a zoning bill uh that deals with the detailed site plan review um part of the process.

Uh preliminary plan is dealt within 144, but the idea is to allow those applications uh to be filed in a combined format so that you know they it hopefully cuts down on the the total time.

Um 145, uh, as I referenced earlier is the encouragement to the executive to create a development ombudsman position.

Um in order to make recommendations and and do whatever needs to be done to kind of improve interaction in the development process and efficiency within the process.

And then finally uh LDR 146 uh would allow sort of sort of concurrent uh consideration of uh concept plans, NRIs and floodplain delineations.

So again, these are not new.

There was um, I think Victoria mentioned um what I think is item number five on the long list of potential recommendations.

Um that's to simplify the sediment control three-step plan approval process.

And we're still looking into that.

My understanding is the chair's interested in that.

We have some time.

Um the expectation, I think, is that whatever bundle of bills goes forward is gonna first make an agenda appearance the first of September so that they can get done this calendar year.

Um so we are, you know, we're working on that.

And I think I mean that's basically it.

This is this is nothing new from last meeting as far as you know what the chair I think has decided to move forward on.

I believe I don't want to speak too much for the chair, but these were things that I think she recognized where we could start making a positive impact, understanding that there are sort of bigger picture issues to be dealt with uh that are gonna take more time.

So that's basically it from my side.

Thank you, Mr.

Hamlin.

I appreciate that.

Uh does anyone have any comments at this point?

I do not see any hands.

Oh, I do.

I see Mr.

Greg Smith.

Go ahead, Mr.

Smith.

The floor is yours.

All right.

Uh can folks hear me.

Yes, sir.

All right.

Thanks for that summary, uh, Josh.

Um so with respect to it's already been decided that these are the four we should move forward with.

I have to wonder what the role of this committee is.

Um uh so that that's one point.

Um there's been no analysis of the impacts of these um these bills on the public's ability to engage to get it to get it for timely information, to file public information act requests to get the documents they need in order to participate.

Um this is a bit of radical compression.

It's not it's not a it's not a an uh an insignificant compression, it's a radical compression of the view process in a number of ways.

Um and I think it's telling that the uh planning department's technical staff's report on 153 is uh I think it's a 10 or 11, 12 page breakdown takedown of the bill and all the lots of the problems with them.

And the staff are recommending for a lot of reasons to or the planning board to oppose this legislation.

Um I would expect if they were given the opportunity to comment on the two companion bills that we'd see a similar demolition of the bills and recommendation to oppose.

Um, so that's just some preliminary thoughts there.

And out is I'll say it again for the record.

I know people are tired of hearing it, but we've got a committee where there's one quote environmental activist, one graduate of the planning academy, and 10 folks from the development community, quite a few of whom are active in or leaders in the Maryland Building Industry Association, which I think is also bringing some of these bills for is their priorities in our legislative agenda.

So we know which way the vote goes here if it's a majority vote.

Thanks.