The map above shows the proposed Watershed Conservation District for Mattawoman Creek. The Charles County Planning Commission voted to include 1,100 acres initially held out of the proposal.
La Plata, MD – Before the portion of the Charles County Planning Commission meeting Monday, Feb. 8, focusing on establishing a Watershed Conservation District for Mattawoman Creek got underway, Planning Director Steve Ball showed the commission members a photograph he’d taken while kayaking on the shores of the estuary in western Charles County.
“Sometimes I think it’s easy to get lost in the numbers,” Ball said. “This photograph shows you that natural resource and how beautiful it can be.”
Whether Ball’s photo played a role in the board’s decisions or not is unlikely, but the Planning Commission nonetheless took a major step forward toward preserving one of the county’s most precious resources when members voted to place a vast portion of the estuary in the watershed conservation district; established boundaries to the area—which included adding 1,100 acres previously excluded from the plan; all while maintaining a development density of one unit per 10 acres.
The zoning change from rural conservation district to watershed conservation district is designed to help curb degradation in the waterway, which feeds into a multi-million dollar bass fishing industry for the county.
Ball told the board that approximately 8.6 to 9.3 percent of the watershed is established in impervious surface, although Commission Member Nancy Schertler suggested it was more like 9 to 11 percent,
Most of that is on the eastern side of the county toward Waldorf, he said.
Subdivision code improvements in those areas will go toward helping protect the resource, Ball stated.
“In the eastern part of this map, a different strategy is needed to ensure water quality is treated in the best possible way that we can,” he added.
The vote to establish the designated 17,000 acres as a watershed conservation district was called and six of the seven members voted for the zoning change, with member Joan Jones voting in opposition.
The second issue, establishing the boundary of the proposed WCD, was a little stickier for members after Schertler suggested including an 1,100-acre tract within the boundary that was being excluded.
“I don’t know why it would not be in the county’s best interest to protect this 1,100 acres,” Schertler said.
“That was a compromise area to have a chance to get some of the TDR development rights,” Ball noted. “The staff proposal was to hold out that 1,100 acres instead of committing to do that whole vast area. It’s in the region that was most likely to be developed first. While it may not be served by public water and sewer, it is close enough to include. It was a staff compromise,” he said.
“There were a number of people who came and spoke against that plan,” Schertler countered. “We would be building a subdivision along the Indian Head Rail Trail.”
In the end, Schertler’s motion passed by a 4-3 margin.
An attempt by the board member to bring the density for development up to one unit per 20 acres as opposed to the current one unit per 10 acres failed, however.
“It’s been my observation since the one unit to 10 acres designation, that has stopped the subdividing,” Environmental Planner Charles Rice told the board. “We hardly even see a family conveyance. I don’t see that making any difference in protecting the resource. Subdivision activity, there has been little to none.”
“I definitely agree with them on that,” Board Member Wayne Magoon said. “There’s not a lot of bonus to doing it.”
After Schertler’s first motion failed, Magoon entered another motion that the one unit per 10 acres density designation remain in place, which was approved 4-3.
The 1,100 acres included in the boundary decision may be a bit of a quandary, Ball noted.
“It’s a policy decision on the boundary,” he said. “The vote was to include it back in the watershed conservation area and remove it from the primary funding area. That is a different process. That is outside of the comprehensive planning purview.”
“It’s just a different process, but it can be done,” Ball concluded.
Contact Joseph Norris at joe.norris@thebaynet.com