Amid the intense debate over a City Hall-backed package of density-promoting zoning bills, two Baltimore community leaders have filed complaints with the state and city about the handling of the legislation.

“We submit this memorandum to formally place the Maryland Attorney General’s Office on notice of a series of grave procedural breaches, statutory violations, and apparent abuses of authority connected to Baltimore City Council Member Ryan Dorsey’s handling of the Housing Options and Opportunities Act, particularly Bill 25-0066,” wrote Carson Ward and Keondra Prier, board chair and president of the Reservoir Hill Association.

Calling the northeast councilman’s actions “fundamentally incompatible with lawful governance,” Ward and Prier also sent their memorandum to State’s Attorney Ivan Bates, Baltimore Inspector General Isabel Mercedes Cumming and the Mayor’s Office of Civil Rights.

Replies from the agencies, they said, indicate that all three offices are reviewing the multi-pronged complaint.

More than just procedural oversights, the women write that Dorsey’s actions, if verified, “would reflect a deliberate tilting of the democratic process, undertaken despite explicit legal warnings, at the expense of the communities the legislation purports to serve.”

Dorsey has not responded to a Brew request for comment about the complaint or possible next steps for Bill 25-0066, which stalled last month under questioning by other Council members.

He indicated at tonight’s City Council meeting that a work session will be held on Bill 25-0066 at 9 a.m. on February 12.

City Council President Zeke Cohen, a supporter of the bill package, also had no comment. Instead, an emailed response offered information about two “listening sessions” that Cohen has scheduled for next month (Feb. 6 and 7) on the zoning legislation.

“The sessions are not formal open meetings of the legislative body. They are meetings to listen to constituents – something my office does every day,”  Cohen said in a statement released by his director of communications, Emily Sullivan. “I will continue meeting and engaging with Baltimoreans who support and oppose this bill.”

Asked if and when a vote might be taken on Bill 25-0066, Cohen said, “Bill 25-0066 is still under deliberation by the committee and the Council continues to accept public comment on the bill.”

“Grounds for Censure”

The last of a package of zoning bills (the other four have passed), Bill 25-0066 eliminates the single-family zoning requirement in residential districts and allows single-family houses, including small rowhouses, to be rebuilt or replaced with up to four units without Zoning Board review or approval.

Supporters have said the bill will end outdated zoning restrictions, provide needed affordable housing and help revitalize struggling neighborhoods. Critics argue it will remove the guardrails on unscrupulous speculators and hurt low-income neighborhoods trying to foster home ownership.

• Read The Brew’s detailed coverage of Scott’s zoning package

The other bills will allow new structures to be built close to – and in some cases right up to – the property line, and relax the requirements for developers to provide off-street parking and dual staircases for certain kinds of apartment buildings.

Prominent among Ward and Prier’s complaints was Dorsey’s decision to disallow virtual testimony at the December 1 Land Use and Transportation Committee hearing he chaired.

Turning away scores of people waiting to testify violated the Maryland Open Meetings Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), they said.

Another concern was that Bill 25-0066 was introduced as a “text amendment,” rather than as comprehensive rezoning that requires extensive public notice and community review.

An opinion from the city Law Department noted that Bill 25-0066 could be vulnerable to legal challenge for this reason, but Dorsey never raised the issue with his committee.

“Proceeding in direct conflict with counsel’s warning” was “not simply reckless, but in any competent administrative body grounds for formal censure,” the complaint asserted.

Another complaint – to city officials by a resident who had wanted to testify virtually at the December 1 committee hearing – came from Mary Hughes of the Panway neighborhood.

The complaint was quickly dismissed by the Mayor’s Office of Equity and Civil Rights. Speaking on the council’s behalf in an email, equity officer Lisa Kelly wrote to Hughes citing City Council Rule 10-13e.

It states that testimony must be taken at the first hearing of a bill and noting that the first hearing on Bill 25-1066 took place on November 20.

“City Council Rules state that no public testimony is required for any subsequent hearing on the same bill,” Kelly told Hughes. “The committee chair does have discretion to permit testimony of any kind at subsequent hearings.”

But according to The Brew’s review of the minutes of the November 20 hearing, Dorsey only recessed at the end of the day’s testimony.

So, in effect, the hearing on December 1 was the same hearing. And it was at this meeting where virtual testimony was disallowed by Dorsey.

Hughes reacted  to the answer she received from Kelly as “unacceptable.”

No Equity Review

According to Ward and Prier, no equity review was conducted on Bill 25-0066 or any of the other measures in the package, as required by city law.

As a result, “legislation with profound racial and socioeconomic implications was advanced without the most basic legal and ethical analysis required.”

Ward and Prier also charged “viewpoint discrimination,” citing instances in which supportive witnesses at a November 20 hearing were allowed to exceed their two-minute limit, while critics were cut off promptly. Council Vice President Sharon Green Middleton, a critic, was not allowed to speak on the bill, while Councilman Zac Blanchard, a supporter, was.

Also restricted to the two-minute limit was another bill opponent, a representative from the West North Avenue Development Authority. A state-funded agency focused on improving housing, economic development and transportation in West Baltimore, WNADA was not allowed “to provide its expert insight” to the Council and public, according to the complaint.

Ward said she and other residents are skeptical about listening sessions like the one provided recently to community leaders by Scott’s chief of staff who, she said, seemed unprepared.

“People were saying it felt like a waste of time, that it was just performative,” she said.

Asked what in her opinion could help alleviate the problem, Ward had a quick answer: “I think Dorsey should be removed as chair.”