4028

VETOES

(2)  A greater variety of residential building types;

(3)  Procedures assuring adequate maintenance and
restricted use of open space areas; and

(4)  Procedures to protect existing and potential
developments adjoining the cluster development.

During the 16 years in which cluster development has been
authorized this procedure has evolved from early experimental
designs to a commonly used subdivision method. County records
indicate that for 1985 60 percent of all lots on preliminary
plats (1,361 lots) in R-R, R-80, and R-55 zones were for cluster
developments.

The increased use of cluster development has not come
without controversy. The views expressed in correspondence with
my office on both sides of this issue are intensely held. Some
County residents feel that the use of cluster development
represents a significant change in the character of the land use
and should be treated as a zoning change. They also express
specific concerns regarding the use of cluster development on
issues of compatibility with existing communities, the use of
private roads in subdivisions, authorization of townhouses in
certain zones, and homeowners association fees for maintenance of
common elements. Others feel that this bill would have an
adverse effect on the land use policies of Prince George's County
because it could effectively eliminate a potentially desirable
option for residential development. The delay, uncertainty, and
heavy burden of proof associated with the procedures required
under the bill could be significant and a likely disincentive to
utilization of that land use approach.

Land use decisionmaking in Maryland has traditionally been
made at the local level. Indeed, the Maryland-Washington
Regional District Act, as set forth in Md. Ann. Code, Art. 28 §
7-108.1(b) (1985 Cum. Supp.), articulates a long-standing
legislative policy that planning and zoning controls should be
implemented by local government. This policy is reinforced by
Prince George's County's charter home rule status. Certainly,
there are exceptions to this general rule such as where there is
a compelling need to alter land use procedures on a
multi-jurisdictional basis to effectuate State policy. I believe
that the circumstances surrounding this bill, particularly given
the assurances of the County Executive and County Council
President for quick and responsive action, do not currently
warrant intrusion by State government. The competing concerns
over cluster development, outlined above, should be addressed, in
the first instance, at the local level.

Therefore, for the above reasons, I have decided to veto
House Bill 1183.

Sincerely,
Harry Hughes