What does the recent resignation of Montgomery’s entire Planning Board mean for the county’s future?

As Montgomery County becomes more diverse and urban, the Planning Board has become a flashpoint for debates about how, or if, the county should grow and change. This conversation could become even more heated after the entire board resigned this week.

The County Council, which appointed the five board members, demanded all of them step down Tuesday following allegations of misconduct. Current councilmembers will now install a temporary board October 25, and after November’s election, incoming councilmembers will appoint permanent board members this winter.

Here’s what happened

The resignations capped over a month of turmoil, which began with a claim that planning board chair Casey Anderson had a liquor cabinet in his office and served employees drinks after work hours. Following an internal investigation, Anderson apologized and removed the alcohol. Last Tuesday, the County Council—which oversees the Planning Board—docked Anderson’s pay along with vice chair Partap Verma and board member Carol Rubin, and all three were required to attend alcohol counseling.

That would have been the end of the story until WJLA 7’s Kevin Lewis reported last Thursday that Verma sent the County Council an email alleging that Anderson used hostile and sexist language. Anderson denied the behavior, and Planning Department director Gwen Wright defended him, saying “There may be people who have concerns with Casey, but they are not my employees.”

Then on Friday, four board members—Verma, Rubin, Tina Patterson, and Gerald Cichy—voted to fire Wright, who was set to retire in January. Wright said she was fired without cause; Anderson abstained from the vote, implying that it was related to her comments defending him. Local political blogger Adam Pagnucco described how unprecedented the four board members’ actions were, and called for their immediate removal.

The County Council met this week to discuss its response amidst a new complaint accusing Verma of meddling in the county’s investigations into Anderson, and unanimously voted Tuesday to ask the entire board to resign.

A reshaped county

Montgomery County’s Planning Board oversees everything from development to parks and makes long-term plans. The outgoing officials—in particular Anderson, who was first appointed to the Planning Board in 2011 and became chair in 2014, and Wright, who has been planning director since 2013—helped make a very different county than the one they found.

Together, Anderson and Wright helped transform downtown Bethesda, revitalize aging office parks and shopping centers, and guided the expansion of our bike and sidewalk networks. Under their guidance, staff have led much-needed conversations on our county’s housing shortage and how to prevent gentrification and displacement. The department’s work has won awards, and Wright herself received one the week before her firing.

Anderson, a former bike advocate, also championed the county’s park system and encouraged more people to use our parks. In recent years, Montgomery Parks has closed park roads to cars, promoted outdoor dining and drinking in parks, and rolled out live events, like plays, comedy shows, and even a shadowcast of the Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Verma, a former GGWash contributor and neighborhood activist, became the county’s first openly gay Planning Board member when appointed in 2019, and was appointed vice chair in February. (We endorsed him that year, along with Anderson’s reappointment.) He championed the transformation of the area around the Forest Glen Metro station, and pushed to open up single-family zoning in neighborhoods near downtown Silver Spring, which ultimately passed earlier this year.

Unfinished business

The outgoing board will also leave behind Thrive, an update to the county’s plan for the next 30 years that emphasizes racial equity, climate change, and economic development. Thrive has faced loud pushback from some residents due to its recommendation to allow more types of homes, like duplexes, townhomes, and apartments, in neighborhoods where current zoning only allows single-family homes.

Polls say that county residents support more housing options (including in their own neighborhood), and the County Council, which has spent a year and a half reviewing the plan, plans to approve it at the end of this month. Thrive opponents like Elrich, who has also criticized the board and the Planning Department, have argued that the board’s drama makes the plan flawed and thus should be thrown out. (But if it wasn’t for infighting and drama, Fleetwood Mac wouldn’t have made Rumours, one of the best albums of all time.)

In a statement yesterday, Elrich responded to the board’s resignation, saying “It is clear that new people and new voices are needed on the Planning Board…Park and Planning has been run by a group of insiders for far too long.” As county executive, he can veto the Council’s choices, though this power has been used just once, in 1986.

That dynamic hangs over the council’s deliberations. For decades, Elrich and his supporters have described county planners as antagonists who ignore longtime residents’ needs and are transforming neighborhoods beyond recognition. It’s not the only perspective among county residents, but Planning Board applicants are often vetted on how deferential they are to this viewpoint. (Just ask me, someone who almost got appointed in 2017.)

The County Council needs to appoint board members who will right the ship, but the risk is that it overcorrects and appoints a board that won’t rock the boat, either. We need a Planning Board that acknowledges how the county’s changing, is open to that change, and can respond in a way that supports the department’s stated goals, even if it means things will look different. To do otherwise would learn the wrong lesson from the past month.

Applications for the temporary board are due October 18, and the council will vote on them October 25.