Developer floats idea for waterfront zoning

Plan would let more homes be built along shores

Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2009

David Cooksey, senior vice president of Loiederman Soltesz Associates Inc. and general manager of the firm's Waldorf office, is proposing that the county create a waterfront planning residential development floating zone — a zone that would be applied over a base zone in areas that meet certain criteria — that would only apply to pre-mapped areas near Goose Bay in Port Tobacco and locations near the Gov. Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge near Aqualand in Morgantown. If approved by the Charles County commissioners, developers would have to receive approval for a project before the WPRD zone could be applied to the land.

Cooksey said during Monday's hearing that right now zoning in waterfront areas in the county is too restrictive to build residential projects. There are only 1,100 acres in the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area along the county's waterfront that can be used for development, he said, adding that so far very few of the acres have been used for development.

Cooksey said that if the floating zone were approved there would be stipulations that developers would have to follow, including fixing any environmental problems on the land such as a failing wastewater treatment plant or septic systems.

"If something needs to be fixed in the area the developer must do it," he said. "This would provide an opportunity to fix these problems through a public and private partnership."

The developer would also have to apply green building standards to the housing such as geothermal heating and cooling and solar panels, Cooksey said.

In addition, projects targeted for the floating zone would have reduced paved surfaces and minimum lot sizes, preferably four residential units per acre.

A good example of how the application of the proposed floating zone could help an environmental problem is the wastewater treatment plant in the Cliffton on the Potomac community near the Nice bridge, Cooksey said.

"That plant was built in the 1970s and its standards are very much below what the state standards are today," he said, adding that a developer could work with the county to upgrade the facility or build a new one that would support the development of 40 to 50 empty lots owned by the county in the subdivision. The county acquired the lots when property owners did not pay taxes on the land many years ago because no more building could be done on them due to the treatment plant being over capacity.

Planning commission member Stephen Bunker asked if the state's critical area laws would still apply to the land within the proposed floating zone.

"All of the critical area rules would be followed," Cooksey said. "We're not trying to bypass any of those rules."

Local environmental activists who testified during the hearing said they were strongly opposed to the creation of the floating zone, saying the WPRD would impact the quality of life of those who would live near the developments built within the zone and that densely built communities would adversely affect the health of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, including the Port Tobacco and Potomac rivers.

"I'm concerned that this proposal is not in the best interest of our citizens," said Nanjemoy resident Kevin Grimes. "I'm concerned that this will remove existing protection from our most sensitive water areas by directing inappropriate growth there."

"My concern is that this will end up being subsidized by taxpayers and that the citizens will have to bear the burden of the destruction of our natural resources so that a few can profit," said Linda Redding of Nanjemoy.

Cooksey is proposing the possible development of 22 miles of shoreline and that is of great concern because of its impact on all of the watersheds in Charles County, said Jim Long, coordinator of the Mattawoman Watershed Society that was formed several years ago to keep an eye on the Mattawoman Creek.

"One of my concerns is the scale of what they're talking about," he said. "If you look at the size of the areas of the floating zone it comprises the entire Port Tobacco River shoreline. We're concerned because this could set a precedent and the Mattawoman watershed is adjacent to the Port Tobacco."

A lot of forest would have to be removed to allow such development, Long said.

"Most of Charles County's shoreline is forested," he said. "If approved, very large subdivisions could go in as a consequence of this. They'll take the forest down and replace it with development and impervious surface. That's a double problem."

Some who testified said that they do not want the environmentally sensitive areas of Nanjemoy disturbed — a concern Cooksey said is unfounded.

"Because of the remoteness of Nanjemoy we agree," he said, adding that no areas in western Charles County are targeted for the floating zone.

Joe Tieger, vice president of the Port Tobacco River Conservancy, said the planning commission needs to direct Cooksey to better refine the proposal before it is seriously considered for approval and adoption.

"There's some nice oratory language in this proposal, but I don't know what it means," he said. "I have no idea what's going to happen in this zone. … There are no standards in this zone. The water quality of the Port Tobacco River is impacted and we need to look for ways to deal with it …. but this proposal is too vague to be approved in its present form."

"This zoning text amendment will have a negative economic and environmental impact," said Bruce Kirk of La Plata.

"When I first looked at this proposal I saw that there was no teeth in it to help us judge whether it will work or not," said Ken Hastings. "… It all needs to be firmed up so people will know what they're working with."

"This [proposal] before you has got a lot of platitudes … but using green phrases does not make you an environmentalist," said local activist Howard Dent. "We don't need this [zone]. I ask you to vote no on it."

Bonnie Bick, spokeswoman for the Sierra Club, summed up the sentiment of those who testified against the creation of the planned residential waterfront floating zone.

"I request that you re-evaluate this and withdraw it because the goal of our county should be to help the Chesapeake Bay survive because presently it's in extremely dire circumstances," she said. "It's inappropriate at this time to pass this zoning text amendment because it would increase growth. We should be looking toward smart growth. Additional growth on our shorelines in forested areas will be very detrimental to the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries."

Cooksey said developers should be able to build environmentally responsible communities along some of the county's shoreline.

"We would like to have the ability to have a waterfront development in Charles County," he said. "We don't have that today [except for Swan Point near Issue]. We want to move forward with this."

The planning commission decided to leave the record open on the proposal until March 12 and then the commission will hold a work session on the request before deciding whether to recommend that the county commissioners approve it.

The county commissioners will hold a public hearing and work session before rendering a decision on the matter.

"I oppose the zoning text amendment that is being pushed here tonight," said Bryans Road resident Emily Canavan. "What we have here in the county is unique and it's dwindling. It's irreplaceable. This proposal is so fiscally irresponsible it's shameful. … The developer will pay some of the bills, but the taxpayers will pick up the rest of the tab."

nmcconaty@somdnews.com