La Plata, MD – Attempts by the Charles County Planning Commission to wade through the proposed Watershed Conservation District (WCD) have brought the ire of some and the praise of others, but when the final details were hashed out Monday, April 24 in La Plata, the contentious nature of the issue was never more evident.
One of the adjustments to the plan considered by planning commission members was whether or not to remove mining as a special exception from the proposal.
“I must have been asleep at this time,” Commission Member Wayne Magoon said. “My question is why?”
“Because it is destructive,” Commission Member Rosalin Daya answered.
“But it is pervious surface and it goes back to a vegetative state once the mining is done,” Magoon countered.
“If I’m a farmer and I have ample property and I use best management practices and consult with soil conservation district, I’m talking about private use, I should be able to do that,” Commissioner Gilbert “Buddy” Bowling Jr. suggested. “This is not spelled out clearly.”
“That’s my problem,” interjected Commission Member Nancy Shertler. “It can be commercial or private. It is destructive to the environment when you mine.”
“It can be an acceptable use in my opinion,” Bowling answered.
“It is vague,” Commission Chair Angela Sherod noted.
“You’re having the right discussion,” Charles County Planning and Growth Management Director Steven Kaii Ziegler stated. “My only suggestion would be, if you want to add some minimum size where you wouldn’t allow it. This is a judgement call on your part as to what you’re going to recommend.”
“If you’re talking about mining, it is typically a commercial use,” Planning Director Steve Ball said.
“What I’m saying is you take it on a case by case basis,” Bowling added.
Kaii Ziegler said that a minor operation could be considered 10 acres or less, where a major project would be 10 acres and above.
“You could allow minor projects,” he suggested. “Major would be causing the problems you’re concerned about.”
“I’m talking about removing it from personal use,” Bowling countered.
“It’s a tough one because it’s a judgement call,” Sherod noted.
“We have the text as it is written,” Kaii Ziegler explained. “Mining should be removed from special exemption. If you wanted to consider allowing small operations, you would have to start with a definition of minor versus major. They would still have to work with soil conservation, you’d still have to go to the board of appeals. You have pretty good separation between major and minor projects. That might be a logical place for you to consider starting, it if you allow it at all. Or your vote could simply be not to allow major mining operations in the WCD.”
“I think clarity is what we’re voting for,” Shertler stated.
With no amendments added, Sherod called for a vote, stating, “We’re voting as it is. There are no amendments at this time.”
The motion passed, but neither Magoon or Bowling would support it.
Another part of the proposed plan involved allowing property owners to pass on an acre or two for a child to build on. There was a proposal that property owners had to own the land at least 10 years prior to passage of the WCD or they would not be allowed to build. Magoon had a problem with that suggestion. “If I understand it, if somebody bought their land this year, they will not be able to participate in the inter-family transfer,” he said.
“They will need to adhere to the 1 in 20 density,” Kaii Ziegler said.
“My recommendation is, if somebody bought it five years ago they didn’t know what they were buying into,” Commission Member Vicki Merckel stated. “I would suggest we modify that you must have owned the land in order to allow a family member to build. If you purchase property after WCD, you can’t build, but if you purchased the land, say yesterday, 10 years from now you could give it to one family member.”
Merckel’s amended motion to allow property owners who currently own property for at least 10 years to participate in the family transfer, but allowing property owners who haven’t owned the land for 10 years to be allowed to add family members after they had owned the property for a decade, was passed unanimously.
“I would like to make an observation,” Kaii Ziegler said. “Something happened in that discussion where the motion was starting to get jumbled up. When you encounter confusion, sometimes simply starting that process of discussion over again, the maker of the motion withdraws and you start from a different place. That is a healthy way to handle issues like this.”
Contact Joseph Norris at joe.norris@thebaynet.com