Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comments Notifications Apd topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge mailed notices for meetings and urge grandfathering of Agricultural Preservation District rules
Summary
During public comment at the Sept. 17 Calvert County Planning Commission meeting, a Lusby resident asked staff to mail postcards announcing upcoming town‑center meetings; another resident urged the commission to grandfather Agricultural Preservation District (APD) agreements rather than apply new rules retroactively.
Two members of the public addressed the planning commission during the Sept. 17 public‑comment period, urging broader notification for upcoming town‑center outreach and raising concerns about proposed changes to Agricultural Preservation District (APD) rules.
Sheila Kupal of Lusby asked the commission to mail postcards announcing the October informational meetings, noting not all residents use social media and that a mailed notice (which she said costs about 24¢ in bulk postage) would help reach a broader cross‑section of residents. Kupal told the commission the county should send tangible reminders so people have the meeting date at hand and suggested adding a sign‑up prompt to outreach materials so residents can subscribe for notifications.
Theresa Ruhlman, who identified herself as a member of the public, addressed a separate item referenced earlier in the meeting concerning the proposed repeal and replacement of the county—s agricultural preservation district rules and regulations. Ruhlman urged the commission to grandfather existing APD landowners under the terms they originally agreed to, saying applying a new set of rules to owners who joined under earlier rules would be "unfair, and potentially illegal." She told the commission that county attorney John Mattingly had acknowledged legal concerns at an earlier meeting, including the potential that retroactive rule changes could amount to a "taking." Ruhlman asked that APD agreements executed under prior rules be honored rather than altered retroactively.
Staff response and record notes: During the meeting a commissioner (Wilson Freeland) had earlier asked for a textual correction in the minutes regarding a separate program name (staff corrected a reference to the State Rural Legacy program). On the notification question, planning staff said the county had used a press release, website postings, Facebook and Nextdoor announcements, banners at town centers and the county app to publicize the October meetings; staff acknowledged the suggestion to add a sign‑up blurb to outreach materials and said they would work with the county communications office to increase notice.
Why it matters: The notification request concerns how the county reaches residents for land‑use conversations that can lead to comprehensive‑plan amendments. The APD comment highlights a substantive legal and equity issue: landowners who entered APD agreements under earlier rules expect those terms to be honored, and retroactive application of new rules could raise legal challenges.
Next steps: Staff will hold the October informational meetings and return to the commission with the meeting summaries. The APD rule package and any proposed ordinance or rule changes would follow later agendas; the planning commission and county attorney previously discussed legal concerns during the Aug. 20 meeting, per public comment.
