La Plata, MD – The Charles County Planning Commission is trying their hardest to cipher out how folks living in the confines of the proposed Watershed Conservation District (WCD)—some 36,769 acres in western Charles County—can allow a son or daughter to build on their property.
The devil, as usual, is in the details.
At the second of two work sessions on the proposed measure held Monday, April 10, commission members once again pondered how they might make that happen and discussed challenges surrounding the concept.
Planning Director Steve Ball suggested as part of the discussion, that based on research and information obtained from the American Planning Association, parcels up to 12 acres be allowed to subdivide not more than two family lots.
“If you have 60 acres, you could have two family lots and one extra lot,” he conjectured. “The lots could not be transferred to a third party unless circumstances based on hardship. To qualify, the property owners must have owned the lot for at least five years.”
“Why the limits on the number of lots?” Planning Commission Member Richard Viohl wanted to know.
“You would be allowing more development than the land is zoned for,” Planning and Growth Management Director Steven Kaii Ziegler replied. “The end result is, I don’t think the planning commission wants to suggest a zoning scheme where you can do more development than the zoning allows.”
“My understanding is, after listening to the comments of the public, citizens who have a property passed down from generation to generation want to be able to allow their child to build on their property under the WCD,” said Planning Commission Member Vicki Merckel. “We don’t have that provision. You want to give that legacy. We don’t want citizens to feel we’re excluding them.”
“If you have six children in their family, somebody is not going to get a lot,” Member Gilbert “Buddy” Bowling Jr. noted. “Somebody is going to have to make tough choices.”
“We’re not here to deal with family estate law,” Member Rosalin Daya suggested.
“I’m just saying you need to appreciate those families who have that number of children,” Bowling said.
“Are we going to open a can of worms?” Daya countered. “Are we going to create a property that now becomes a subdivision? That’s not something we need to get into.”
“For some of these families, this is their legacy,” Member Wayne Magoon stated.
“I understand that,” Daya responded.
“After looking at this, I’m not sure this is a problem that needs to be solved,” Member Nancy Shertler said. “My primary question is, is there really a need for it?”
“After public comments I say yes,” Merckel asserted. “If it is a problem subdivision, we could put a parcel limited to 10 acres. We can’t just turn our back on this community.”
“We’re getting wrapped around the axle,” Kaii Ziegler said. “I can tell you the thinking process. I’m not a big proponent of inter-family transfers. They usually create more problems than they solve. When I say we need to provide a reasonable amount of inter-family transfers that doesn’t exceed what can be done in the current zoning, it needs to be understood that we can’t create a scenario where you provide opportunities for every child, grandchild or nephew.”
Planning Commission Chair Angela Sherod said she hopes to be able to vote on the issue at the next meeting April 24.
Contact Joseph Norris at joe.norris@thebaynet.com
