FINKSBURG PLANNING AREA COUNCIL, INC.

P.O. Box 70

Finksburg, Maryland 21048

August 9, 2004

Fax Only

Board of County Commissioners

225 North Center Street

Westminster, Maryland 21157

Dear Commissioners:

On behalf of the Executive Board of the Finksburg Planning Area Council, Inc.(hereinafter “FPAC”), this letter is a followup to the letter of July 16, 2004, from John Lopez, regarding the proposed Finksburg Corridor Conservation Plan (hereinafter “plan”). This plan is to be heard this evening by the Planning and Zoning Commission in a meeting that will not take public comments.

Of significant concern to the FPAC is the fact the group has worked closely with the Planning Department for more than 2 years on the plan. During this time there has been no mention to the FPAC, until July 2004, that an employment campus was being considered for Finksburg. While we recognize the Employment Campus District Ordinance, No. 04-02, was not adopted until April 1, 2004, it is difficult to imagine the “Planning” Department was unaware that such a proposal was to be inserted in the plan.

Just as important as the above-noted omission is that the employment campus proposal for Finksburg does not seem to follow the County’s own enabling ordinance. Section 223-205(A), of the ordinance provides the employment campus should be “unobtrusive to the surrounding properties.” With a maximum permitted building height of 120’ it is difficult to imagine how that can be fulfilled at the Gerstell site. Also, that same section, at (B)(3), lists as an objective that an employment campus should “minimize the disturbance to neighboring properties.” It is inconceivable that displacing the residents of Todd Village accomplishes the County’s stated goal.

Board of County Commissioners

August 9, 2004

Page 2

Additionally, section 223-208(B) requires land to be designated as an employment campus must meet certain “additional suitability criteria”, e.g. highway access, availability of water and adequate sewage disposal methods. I am unaware if such criteria have ever been adopted. If they have and the property meets the criteria we would be most interested in seeing the results report. I am unaware if the Planning Department has complied with the publishing and posting requirements in section 223-211(B) of the ordinance. Lastly, for this correspondence at least, is a concern whether or not the “applicant” for this employment campus zone is the actual property owner which seems to be contemplated by sections 223-208(A) and 223-211(A) of the ordinance.

The FPAC will continue to review the proposal and keep you apprised of its concerns.

Cordially,

Donald E. Hoffman

Secretary

CC: Mr. Steve Horn, Planning Dept.

Planning & Zoning Commission