Three Maryland government agencies have commented on the draft update of the Charles County Comprehensive Plan, the county\u2019s chief planning document, with the Maryland Department of Planning calling the document \u201cthe most drastic policy reversal in a comprehensive plan that this agency has ever seen.\u201d<\/p>\n
Having received the comments, the Charles County Planning Commission will decide whether to amend its recommended draft before submitting it to the Charles County commissioners for potential changes and a vote.<\/p>\n
In a Feb. 4 letter and report addressed to county government, MDP lists concerns, including that the plan \u201cpromote[s] large lot sprawl development,\u201d endangering \u201cthe County\u2019s rural character and environmentally sensitive lands,\u201d documents state.<\/p>\n
The Maryland Department of Natural Resources was equally harsh, calling the draft \u201cinconsistent with 12 visions,\u201d including infrastructure development, environmental protection and resource conservation, \u201cadopted by the Maryland General Assembly in 2012,\u201d and with other county and state planning goals.<\/p>\n
DNR also calls the plan\u2019s population growth \u201cquestionable\u201d and land cover projections \u201cnot well supported.\u201d Permitted building density in the \u201crural conservation district,\u201d where land is supposed to be preserved, is too high, the comments continue, and the district is too small, endangering the Zekiah Swamp and heavily forested Nanjemoy. An appendix by DNR Fisheries Service staff calculated that the plan, if implemented, \u201cseriously threatens fish habitat and fisheries in three sub-estuaries,\u201d particularly the Mattawoman Creek, where growth \u201cwill make ecological reconstruction and revitalization prohibitively expensive and largely unsuccessful.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Maryland Department of the Environment piled on in its own Jan. 22 response, with comments asserting that \u201cthe Plan does not address water quality at all,\u201d noting groundwater issues in some places and \u201cdisinfection byproducts\u201d in parts of Waldorf served by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, issues that could need to remedied soon to comply with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.<\/p>\n
MDE also questioned the county\u2019s ability to dispose properly of sewage generated by new development and to protect \u201chigh quality waters,\u201d including Mattawoman Creek and Zekiah Swamp Run, suggesting that the county use zoning and other ordinances to direct development away from sensitive watersheds.<\/p>\n
The Maryland Department of Transportation was more encouraging, with generally positive comments concluding that the draft plan \u201cis responsive to State goals and State transportation studies. It responds to the needs of a jurisdiction that has experienced rapid population growth, suburban development and a loss of undeveloped land.\u201d The plan was compatible with the goal of expanding mass transit in Charles County as well, MDOT opined Jan. 15.<\/p>\n
MDP weighed in on transportation issues, as well, and was relatively sanguine, praising the county\u2019s interest in developing mass transit and concluding that the plan \u201cincludes transportation and land use policies and strategies that support smart growth in designated growth areas.\u201d But, the comments continued, accommodating \u201clow-density sprawl\u201d development promoted by the plan would require the building of expensive county and state roads, worsen commutes and increase emissions of climate-altering greenhouse gases.<\/p>\n
Finally, Prince George\u2019s County had its own concerns about the plan, noting that part of the development district, which encompasses Waldorf and other northern Charles County land, borders land that Prince George\u2019s had marked for conservation. Prince George\u2019s County Planning Director Fern Piret, writing for the regional Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, added that greater water demand from Charles County could affect residents of southeastern Prince George\u2019s County and WSSC customers, while \u201ctransportation volume, primarily along the US 301 Corridor,\u201d is an ongoing issue that our jurisdictions need to closely coordinate.<\/p>\n
Reactions vary<\/p>\n
The comments elicited various responses from local officials, one incredulous, two unsurprised.<\/p>\n
Planning commission member Joe Richard, who voted for the draft, said he was bewildered by the idea that the new plan could be a \u201cdrastic policy reversal,\u201d particularly because it was substantially identical to the existing plan, enacted in 2006.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat\u2019s more of a political statement. I\u2019m not getting into a row with the Maryland Department of Planning, but their statements recently, their analysis and assessment is quite frankly really over the top. I think they\u2019ve abrogated, really, any objective analysis or assessment based on their agenda. Clearly, reading their analysis, it\u2019s reading like [a report by] 1000 Friends of Maryland,\u201d an environmental group.<\/p>\n
The draft protects the environment, Richard said, and there already are \u201cmyriad environmental regulations imposed both on the legislative and the regulatory side that put safeguards in place,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Dru Schmidt-Perkins, executive director of 1000 Friends of Maryland, laughed when asked if her group had influenced the agencies\u2019 comments, saying the group hadn\u2019t seen the state responses until after they were mailed.<\/p>\n
\u201cOf course that\u2019s absurd. While I relish the compliment that we\u2019re so strong that we are writing these comments, it\u2019s definitely not true. The first time I saw the comments was after they were filed and \u2026 they brought up far more detail than we had discussed,\u201d Schmidt-Perkins said.<\/p>\n
She shared fears about environmental degradation, however, saying that stormwater runoff, septic system discharge and other pollution from low-density development would endanger rivers, while the development itself would consume forests and farms.<\/p>\n
The consequences would be bad economically as well as ecologically, she added, endangering bass fishing and agriculture.<\/p>\n
Agriculture is \u201ca really important part of the economy for Charles County, and I believe that, finally, if this low-density sprawl and development happens, it will simply be ugly, and one of Charles County\u2019s attractions is how beautiful it is \u2026 and if all that is low-density housing, it\u2019s not going to be attractive and it\u2019s not going to be a place people want to go to,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
Planning commission Chairman Courtney Edmonds, an opponent of the draft, did not return calls seeking comment.<\/p>\n
Two Charles County commissioners, board President Candice Quinn Kelly (D) and Commissioner Ken Robinson (D), said the state\u2019s reaction was basically what they expected. County Commissioners Reuben B. Collins II (D), Debra M. Davis (D) and Bobby Rucci (D) did not return calls seeking comment.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey said they\u2019ve never seen anything like it in history, that it\u2019s turning back the hands of time, basically. It\u2019s very discouraging,\u201d Robinson said. \u201cI also want to point out that the commissioners have not addressed the comprehensive plan yet. I\u2019m still confident that when we deal with it, we will be taking a more progressive approach.\u201d<\/p>\n
Robinson said he was hopeful that a majority of the commissioners would accept a version that pleased the state, as well.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019ve expressed confidence repeatedly throughout the process that when it gets to our eyes, we\u2019ll take a long, hard look at it so we can pretty much stick to what the intent of the law. \u2026 I think my colleagues will have a different approach than the planning commission. Let\u2019s put it this way: I hope my colleagues will have a different approach.\u201d<\/p>\n
The county has to conform to state law, Kelly said.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think it\u2019s important to acknowledge that absolutely; there are those who are saying land use planning is 100 percent within the realm of the local jurisdiction. Nevertheless, no jurisdiction can or should plan in a vacuum. We have to understand that what we do impacts the entire state,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
But it\u2019s all local for Dave Lines, a member of the board of directors of the Charles County Farm Bureau who has monitored the comprehensive plan process for the organization. Farmers are too busy with work to participate in most public hearings, he said, so their views aren\u2019t adequately represented. But farmers need to be able to borrow against their land to keep farming, which means keeping land values high. That, in turn, requires keeping the option to develop their land instead, said Lines, a La Plata farmer.<\/p>\n
Lines, a supporter of the draft plan, agreed with Richard that the draft couldn\u2019t be a radical document because it is too similar to the existing plan.<\/p>\n
\u201c2006 is what currently exists. If they keep [the] 2006 [plan], how is it a reversal? How is it a change? [State agencies are] missing the picture,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Lines didn\u2019t believe in the agencies\u2019 dire predictions if more rural land is developed, noting that there were trailers at La Plata High School when he attended almost 50 years ago, long before the building boom. Traffic in Charles County is much better than in Prince George\u2019s, he added.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019re in a situation where we\u2019re close to Washington, D.C. People want a place to live. That\u2019s the fact of life,\u201d Lines said.<\/p>\n
Federal backlash<\/p>\n
The draft comprehensive plan has garnered federal attention, too.<\/p>\n
The Fish and Wildlife Service, part of the U.S. Department of the Interior, wrote to Charles County government Jan. 14, asking that the county change land use plans to protect sensitive waterways. The letter stated that FWS has been following both the comprehensive plan and the county \u201ctier map,\u201d a land use map drafted to comply with the so-called \u201cseptic bill,\u201d formally the Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act of 2012.<\/p>\n
FWS urged Charles County to scrap the draft plan in favor of another, drawn up by an outside consultant after public hearings, that the Charles County Planning Commission rejected last year. It also urged the county to reject its draft tier map and replace it with a proposal, drawn up by county staffers, that would preserve more rural farm and forest land.<\/p>\n
\u201cCharles County supports some of the most important habitat for fish and wildlife in the Chesapeake Bay region. The Service\u2019s Chesapeake Bay Field Office has identified several focus watersheds for conservation in Southern Maryland based on their importance to migratory birds, migratory fish, and federally-listed threatened and endangered species. These include Mattawoman Creek, Nanjemoy Creek, and Zekiah Swamp in Charles County. Mattawoman Creek is the Chesapeake Bay\u2019s most productive nursery for migratory fish like American Shad,\u201d FWS wrote.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe encourage you to see that these watersheds are considered for special protection,\u201d the letter continued. \u201cNeither the Draft Comprehensive Plan nor the Planning Commission\u2019s Tier Map adequately protect these important stream valleys and ultimately will result in increased sediment and nutrient pollution in the Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay. Planning decisions in Charles County have ramifications well beyond its borders. Destruction of forests and farms in Charles County not only degrades local resources, it also reduces the quality of fish and wildlife resources throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Three Maryland government agencies have commented on the draft update of the Charles County Comprehensive Plan, the county\u2019s chief planning document, with the Maryland Department of Planning calling the document \u201cthe most drastic policy reversal in a comprehensive plan that this agency has ever seen.\u201d Having received the comments, the Charles County Planning Commission will Read the Rest…<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":24,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3159","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news-clippings"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.maryland.gov\/mda\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3159","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.maryland.gov\/mda\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.maryland.gov\/mda\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.maryland.gov\/mda\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/24"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.maryland.gov\/mda\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3159"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/news.maryland.gov\/mda\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3159\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3160,"href":"https:\/\/news.maryland.gov\/mda\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3159\/revisions\/3160"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.maryland.gov\/mda\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3159"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.maryland.gov\/mda\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3159"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.maryland.gov\/mda\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3159"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}