Hyattsville questions review process for EYA

City says planners were too broad in interpreting zoning, but county says recommendations were proper

Planning staff interpreted language in its regulations to say that mixed use in the subdivision refers to the entire project, not individual lots. Gardiner said staff should not have used a different interpretation for this project, and should have required developers to adhere to the original wording.

‘‘I’m disappointed with the last-minute change of the community zoning code,” Gardiner said. ‘‘I don’t understand how staff could interpret ‘a single lot or parcel’ to mean the entire and, therefore, remove the variance requirements for specific lots.”

The project in question, East Village — half of EYA’s Arts District Hyattsville — will include more than 500 row houses and condominiums, along with live⁄work units and retail space. But the width of the row houses — some are as narrow as 14 feet wide and as large as 24 feet wide — concerned Hyattsville city officials, who suggested narrower homes would appeal to a more transient population and lead to frequent ownership turnover.

Planners did not adhere to planning regulations regarding the mix of uses, Gardiner said in a letter to Planning Board Chairman Samuel J. Parker Jr. ‘‘The proper remedy for changing language in the [ordinance] is for the County Council to amend it, not for M-NCPPC to interpret it differently for different projects,” the letter stated.

The underlying zone for the EYA project is a Mixed-Use-Infill (M-U-I) zone. It is also part of the county-approved Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for the Prince George’s County Gateway Arts District.

An M-U-I zone requires a mix of uses on each lot of the subdivision in order for a developer to deviate from standards. But the board interpreted the mix-of-use requirements in light of the entire project, not specific to each lot, Gardiner asserted in the letter.

The change of interpretation allowed the developer to request variances from the required width of townhouses. Planning regulations require townhouses to be at least 18 feet wide.

Planning Director Fern Piret agreed the wording regarding mix of use is cloudy, but it did not affect the Planning Board’s decision.

‘‘It’s kind of odd wording and we probably need to fix it,” she said, adding the developer’s requests likely would have been honored even if the wording had been different.

Piret said the literal interpretation of the regulation that Gardiner mentioned would be detrimental to development.

‘‘That doesn’t make any sense when you’re trying to encourage mixed use, because when you have townhouses, you can’t have mixed use on each lot or parcel.”

There have only been two times when concern over this wording arose, Piret said. The other project, near the Addison Road Metro station, was reviewed by a planner who used a literal interpretation of the mix of use regulation. The commission haggled over the issue but ended up keeping the strict wording in place.

‘‘It sort of makes a mockery of the mixed-use zone,” Piret said. ‘‘It’s clearly very legal [to] refer to the lot or parcel before you subdivide.”

Gardiner was also concerned about planning staff’s failure to include written comments by community planner Dineene O’Connor, who suggested the townhouse widths did not conform to planning standards.

It is common practice for interested departments within the planning commission to make comments, or referrals on projects. A referral made by O’Connor in August was brought before the board for its Jan. 4 vote, but a more critical referral made by O’Connor on Dec. 13 was not included.

In the later memo, O’Connor highlighted county regulations for townhouse width and her concern that the EYA project does not conform to them.

‘‘There is a sense that these narrow widths may be substandard and have a detrimental affect on the overall quality of the Town Center Character Area over time,” the memo states.

Gardiner is concerned the Planning Board did not have all the information available before the decision.

But O’Connor last week said she is comfortable with her second referral not making it to the Planning Board’s desk.

‘‘It might have got to them late,” she said, adding she was on vacation just before the vote. She said many of her comments in the later referral were more appropriate for the board’s detailed site plan review, which has yet to be scheduled.

County planner Chad Williams said it is common practice for all referrals on a project to be included in the planning staff’s final report to the Planning Board, but said a strict project schedule means comments submitted late may not be included.

Memos from other planning staff submitted for the staff report were dated as late as Dec. 26, Gardiner said.

O’Connor said she was pleased with EYA’s project as it stands. ‘‘I didn’t mean to infer that any product done by EYA would be substandard, but just that it’s less than what we see in other parts of the county,” she said.

E-mail Sarah Nemeth at snemeth@gazette.net.