The St. Mary’s County Commissioners have approved two zoning text amendments, with one generating some controversy. Commissioner Lawrence Jarboe (R: 3rd) voted against an amendment would allow the Department of Land Use and Growth Management (LUGM) to create a new lot around an existing home in situations where two homes (or more) legally sit on one lot. A second amendment that extends the deadline to complete projects already in the pipeline until May of 2017 and grandfathered projects whose deadlines have expired since the first of the year was passed unanimously.

Jarboe supported the contention of the St. Mary’s County Farm Bureau that TDRs (Transfer of Development Rights) should be purchased when the new lots are created around existing homes, some of which have been legally in existence since well before zoning was established in the county. Farm Bureau President Jamie Raley testified at the public hearings before the planning commission and the county commissioners.

Jarboe also noted that the homeowners in situations such as that had accrued property tax advantages because they were not on a separate lot. He said the savings could have been as much as $20,000 over 20 years. He said requiring the purchase of TDRs would mitigate somewhat the county’s lost revenue.

But Commission Cynthia Jones (R: 1st) rebutted Jarboe’s arguments. “I really think this is a property-rights issue,” she said. Jones read from the zoning ordinance section on TDRs that the program was voluntary. She said Jarboe’s proposal would not be voluntary. The ordinance also says the program is to apply to “potential homes.” She said, “These are not potential homes. They are already there.”

Director of Land Use and Growth Management Phillip Shire also sided with the majority of the commissioners. “I don’t believe they (the new lots) are an exemption from the TDR program.” Shire said it was unknown how many properties could be affected by the change

The planning commission debated the TDR Issue for several months before coming to the conclusion the program didn’t apply to the situation where the homes already existed. They unanimously recommended the change to the county commissioners.

–>