Despite a sparser crowd than the proposed Charles County Comprehensive Plan has drawn in the past, there were plenty of opinions expressed during the public hearing on the topic in La Plata June 21.
La Plata, MD – The old expression, “You can’t please everybody,” is resounding like a kettle drum in the wake of the Charles County Commissioners Tuesday, June 21 public hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan for Charles County.
Many praised the effort, thanking the commissioners profusely for hearing their voices. Other decried limitations placed on development.
And those 1,160 acres on the west side of Charles County just east of Billingsley Road—placed in Watershed Conservation District designation by the Planning Commission, a move which appears to be supported by the county—is swirling at the center of a dispute between those who had plans for that tract of land and those who want to see it preserved.
Then there’s the Maryland Airport, concerned that the plan will allow residential development to sprout up around their paltry 15 acres, something that was clearly stated as a concern in a recent study conducted at great expense by the county regarding the facility.
Put it all together and you have a recipe for something that just a decade ago would have seemed unlikely–preservation of natural resources winning out over development.
It’s more than some could have hoped for, and a lot more than others wanted.
“The proposed provisions of the plan are tantamount to a moratorium and undermine the county’s new economic development plan before it even comes out of the starting gate,” Ed Fleming told the commissioners Tuesday night.
“I would like to see a moratorium on development,” said Beverly Johnson of Waldorf. “I know that is not likely to happen.”
“The quality of life in Charles County will be greatly affected by the direction this plan takes,” said Austin Doherty of Nanjemoy. “We don’t need commercial sprawl. We do need stronger protections for Mattawoman Creek like those proposed.
“We urge you to rein in the growth,” Doherty added. “More than any other, this is the main concern.”
“We feel like, finally we had been heard,” said Peggy Ireland of Bryans Road. “Our community feels like we’ve finally been heard. We’ve been crying for things for so long, for what our children needed, what our families needed, what our residents needed. I wanted to come on behalf of my community and say thank you.”
Former Charles County Attorney Roger Fink of La Plata did not come before the board to say thank you, however, but to decry the county regarding the 1,160 acres now in Watershed Conservation District (WCD).
“We are opposing the planning commission’s decision to take that land, which was in a priority funding area and designate it WCD,” Fink said. “It lacks any reasonable basis or nexus, lying outside of the Mattawoman watershed. Priority funding was part of Maryland’s Smart Growth program. The necessary infrastructure existed or was planned for construction. Billingsley Road has a 16-inch water main in that road and it has a septic designation.”
Ed Carroll of Waldorf also took issue with the 1,160 acres.
“There is a clear advantage to the county keeping these 1,100 acres in Tier 2 designation,” Carroll noted. “In addition to the elementary school, a middle school and public park could be envisioned for this area. Any environmental damage to this site would be countered by engineering,” he asserted.
“Without maintaining the Tier 2 designation, none of the public benefits I just listed would occur,” Carroll added.
Howard Dent of Newburg went in the other direction.
“I was at the Comprehensive Plan kickoff meeting in 2011,” Dent said. “Many of us have been working on this plan for five years. I think we have a good plan. Keep the 1,100 acres on Billingsley Road as they are in the plan,” he urged.
Nancy Smart of La Plata called the effort to conserve the acreage a positive step.
“That was a great decision by the planning commission,” Smart exclaimed. “Contrary to claims made here tonight, the area does not have easy access to sewer. Sewer in not readily available to this property. Proponents say, it’s not in the Mattawoman watershed, therefore it should be available to development. Most of it is in the Port Tobacco River watershed. These are two very important headwaters that are critically important.”
Martin Gary, executive director of the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, echoed that sentiment and praised the county’s efforts to protect Mattawoman Creek.
“Mattawoman Creek is a gem among gems, one of the most pristine estuaries in all of Chesapeake Bay,” Gary said. “You have a resource here that is really worthy of protection. Preserve it to the very best of your ability. Just remember, as go the health of the tributaries, so goes the health of the Potomac.”
For some, like Indian Head’s James Reed, the proposed plan will limit development where he lives to one unit per 20 acres, which he claims just about does him in.
“I have 12 acres and I have a home,” he said. “The remaining property is of no use to me. I can’t develop it, I can’t sell it. Your rezoning is making my land useless. I’m not going to recover from that. I was going to develop that property. That was my retirement. It’s the same as the government seizing my property.”
And then there’s the other side:
“We love our streams, valleys and eagles,” said Lisa Garlock of Bryans Road. “A lot of places, when they start developing, all of that goes away.”
Contact Joseph Norris at joe.norris@thebaynet.com
