La Plata, MD – In an effort to jump-start the long, belabored Comprehensive Plan, stalled for years in debate and process, the Charles County Commissioners asked Tuesday, Feb. 3 to hold a work session with the Charles County Planning Commission to discuss the plan.
“There are a lot of issues,” said Steven Ball, planning director for Charles County. “It’s been a long process. We have a ways to go still,” he said.
With a new board of commissioners and new members coming on the planning commission, there may be a period of bringing both sides awareness of the complex nature of the effort, adding that the planning commission has the responsibility to prepare the comprehensive plan and the county commissioners have the authority to approve or deny it.
“There was some confusion about if changes could be made once that plan was transmitted to the state and the attorney general finally issued an opinion and the answer is no,” Ball said.
The new plan is a complete update of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan which the county currently operates under.
Final recommendations from the planning commission were sent to the county commissioners in 2013.
Maryland Senate Bill 236 restricts development in rural conservation areas, Ball said, explaining the comprehensive plan’s four “tiers.” He defined them as Tier 1, which is land served by sewer lines, Tier 2 is property planned for sewer, Tier 3 represents land with no greater than seven lots on septic systems, and Tier 4 is property that is preserved for agriculture or land uses.
“Our concerns were mainly in the 3 and 4 areas,” Ball noted. “The planning commission recommended the tier map in 2012, but allowed for major subdivisions on septic systems. There are no areas in Tier 4 for development except for rural legacy required by legislation.”
The net impact of the tier map required removal of agricultural land uses in rural areas, he pointed out, adding that the planning commission decided to call it rural development areas.
“The result of that is basically, because it’s rural residential, that’s the prim purpose for them [rural development areas], agriculture would be secondary,” he said. “If you call it agricultural preservation, it had to be designed as such.”
“Is there another term besides rural residential we can use?” Commissioner Vice President Ken Robinson [D-District 1] (pictured) wanted to know.
“That’s part of the problem,” Ball responded. “It’s been corrected or changed already. If you call it agricultual tier land use, it’s not consistent with the legislation.”
The complex plan has been amended and changed and the process may take longer than expected, but county leaders felt a “sit down” with the planning commission might be appropriate, given the new members on both boards, to make sure everyone knew what was going on with the proposed document.
“We need to complete formatting of the final changes from the planning commission and then transmit the plan to the Maryland Department of Planning, which is a 60-day review process,” Ball noted. “Staff will review comments from the state and we’ll hold a public hearing, then make a recommendation to send the plan back to the county commissioners.”
“The Cross County Connector is still in the plan,” Robinson noted. “That for me is a problem.”
“Trying to look down the road, I don’t want a suggestion to be interpreted as interfering,” he added. “It’s very complicated and the same thing exists at the planning commission level. I’d like to make sure everybody is up to speed on this document. I’d like to see if there is any interest in sending a letter to the planning commission at this time.”
“It feels like something is missing,” Commissioner Amanda Stewart [D- District 3} said. “I don’t know if it’s appropriate according to the law, but if it is allowed, it seems like the groups need to come together and have an appropriate discussion about where we are, to discuss the document and plan.”
“It’s allowed,” Ball said, “but right now we’re in a process moving forward to adoption.”
“I think the idea of a joint meeting is a great idea,” Robinson agreed. “The environment has changed. It would be terrific hearing from the planning commission, especially since there has been turnover since this process started.”
“I don’t want to hold up this process,” Stewart added. “It would be good just to let them know we appreciate their hard work and to build a positive relationship with everyone so that we understand the process of what’s going on. It’s never a bad idea. I would say it’s beneficial for all parties involved.”
“It would be a learning process for everybody there,” Ball agreed. “It would be an opportunity to talk about sensitive issues between the board and the county commissioners.”
“Would this mean a delay in submitting the plan?” Commissioner Debra Davis [D-District 2] wanted to know.
“Yes,” Ball replied.
Robinson made a motion to put a meeting with the planning commission on the agenda in the form of a formal request, which was seconded by Stewart and approved by four of the five commissioners (Commissioner Bobby Rucci [D-District 4] was not in attendance).
Ball said he would ask the planning commission to defer transmitting the plan to the state.
“Please let them know we are not doing this to slow them up, we just want to be educated on this issue,” Commissioner President Peter Murphy [D] said.
Contact Joseph Norris at joe.norris@thebaynet.com