Developers, environmentalists and residents raised a variety of concerns about a proposed Priority Preservation Area plan element during a public hearing before the Charles County Planning Commission last week.
The proposed PPA for Charles County comprises 151,000 acres in three subareas: Nanjemoy, southeastern Charles County and the Zekiah Swamp.
One of the major goals of the PPA is to preserve 80 percent of the remaining undeveloped land within its boundaries.
That translates to 99,851 acres of 124,814 acres that remain undeveloped in the PPA.
Because 53,197 acres already are protected in the PPA, 46,654 additional acres need to be preserved to meet the goal.
According to the plan, the county intends to set a goal of preserving 1,555 acres per year in the PPA over 30 years.
The PPA also is intended to protect productive agricultural and forestry land from development, according to state law.
Citizens had concerns about amending the 2006 plan instead of being part of the 2012 comprehensive plan update process.
Nanjemoy resident Rick Viohl Jr., who spoke at the Sept. 26 meeting on behalf of the Conservancy for Charles County, said that the conservancy supports a strong PPA, but amending the 2006 comprehensive plan is “ill-advised.”
“It is far better to integrate the PPA with the 2012 comprehensive plan,” Viohl said.
Several speakers also favored delaying the PPA to incorporate it into the 2012 comprehensive plan.
Planning staff also have said that they cannot recommend the PPA plan element to amend the 2006 comprehensive plan because the process of the 2012 comprehensive plan update provides a context to understand how the county’s many land use issues relate to the PPA.
The planning commission voted to consider the PPA plan element as an amendment to the 2006 comprehensive plan
Viohl said that the conservancy supports strengthening the county’s transfer of development rights program, but without zoning changes, the program will not improve.
“Landowners will believe their land is better to develop than to preserve,” Viohl said.
Others argued for the rights of property owners who live in the PPA.
“It should be the responsibility of the landowner to decide what they want,” said Drew Havrilla, who owns J.C. Drew Home Builders in Bel Alton.
Several residents said that they were opposed to downzoning in the PPA, but the PPA as proposed does not have any downzoning proposed.
Instead, the current zoning density of one unit per three acres remains in place for PPA lands in the proposed plan element.
A proposal during a series of forums in February to gain additional public input on the PPA considered downzoning the PPA to one unit per 20 acres.
After several people expressed opposition to that proposal, the PPA subcommittee recommended the current proposal of current zoning plus a “managed growth” policy to implement the PPA.
Under a managed growth policy, the county would seek to maintain a balance of 1.87 acres preserved to one acre developed.
Under the policy, the planning commission would receive information at the end of each year about the preservation and development patterns in the PPA.
If the balance were lower than 1.87 acres preserved to one acre developed, no more development could be approved in the PPA until more land is preserved to re-establish the 1.87-to-1 balance.
Citizens also spoke about the need to improve the county’s transfer of development rights program, which governs the sending and receiving of development rights so that developers can develop at a higher density than normal and landowners can receive compensation for preserving their land.
La Plata resident David Lines, who is a farmer and also participates in forestry activities, said that TDRs are not working, but Charles County could borrow ideas from neighboring Calvert County.
Lines said the county could implement a purchase and retirement program and a leverage and retirement program to reduce the supply of TDRs and create more demand for TDRs.
A PAR program allows the county to purchase up to 10 development rights from landowners in exchange for preservation. An LAR program allows the county to purchase all of a landowner’s development rights on an installment plan with tax-free interest for the county.
Lines said that both programs have helped Calvert County to preserve more than 25,000 acres.
Accokeek resident Jim Long, who also serves as the president of the Mattawoman Watershed Society, said, “In order for TDRs to work, we need the whole perspective of the county.”
Long advocated for outreach to inform residents about TDRs and how they can work.
Newburg resident Wayne Wilkerson, who owns Wilkerson Construction, said that TDRs have not adequately compensated landowners.
Wilkerson said there needs to be a “fair and reasonable transition” to the PPA so that landowners and developers can adjust to the changes.
Wilkerson also asked for the grandfathering of approved preliminary plans in the PPA so they could continue, and for the public record to remain open longer than normal.
Several speakers asked that the county conduct a fiscal impact study of the PPA.
“It is the only way that the county will ensure that people are treated fairly,” said Bonnie Bick, Southern Maryland representative for the Maryland Sierra Club.
Planning commission members also said they wanted a fiscal impact study, but for different reasons.
“Preservation is shown to be cost-effective ... there is a cost savings by not allowing sprawl development. A tree does not need public service,” planning commission member Joe Tieger said. “I don’t think that has been well considered in this county.”
Member Bob Mitchell also asked for a fiscal impact study on preservation and asked whether preservation policies could change in the PPA if the county secured more businesses.
Environmental Programs Manager Charles Rice of the county’s Department of Planning and Growth Management said that any implementation program would be looked at annually, and the PPA program itself would be revisited at each comprehensive plan update cycle — every six years.
Planning Director Steven Ball said that the county already had conducted a fiscal impact study, but if commission members wanted additional detail, members should let him know.
The plan element would allow Charles County to regain certification for its agricultural land preservation program.
Under the Agricultural Stewardship Act of 2006 passed by the General Assembly, counties that wish to have the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation certify their agricultural land preservation program are required to have a PPA plan element.
Charles County lost its certification after it did not pass a plan element by the Dec. 1 deadline.
The certification allows the county to retain 75 percent of tax revenues gained from agricultural property transfers. Without certification, the county only retains 33 percent.
The difference in percentages allowed Charles County to keep an additional $3.3 million for land preservation between 1997 and 2007.
Revenues have decreased in recent years due to a slow economy.
The planning commission voted to keep the record open for 60 days.
pwarner@somdnews.com
