Commissioners debate transfer-of-development-rights amendment after conservation, preservation officials warn of risks

County Commissioners at their June 24 meeting in Centreville heard extended testimony and staff discussion about County Ordinance 25-07, a citizen-sponsored text amendment that would allow reconfiguration of parcels from which development rights (TDRs) have been transferred.

The amendment drew public comment from conservation and land-preservation officials who said the measure, as drafted, risked weakening permanent easements that support the county’s agricultural preservation program.

Jay Paulstead, speaking for the Queen Anne’s Conservation Association, asked commissioners to “push forward an unfavorable” recommendation on the amendment, saying it “will open the doors to unnecessary development on areas where it was not meant to go in the first place.” Donna Landis Smith, Land Preservation Administrator for the Queen Anne’s County Soil Conservation District, told commissioners that altering TDR configuration could jeopardize the county’s certification with the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF). “Reconfiguring and giving the opportunity to change the TDR regulations that have been in place and have worked very well could jeopardize our certification,” Smith said, explaining her concern that sales should respect original TDR acreage and boundaries.

Jeff Thompson, the text-amendment sponsor, told the board that his proposal had been narrowed to remove references to “reconfiguring” and that the intent was administrative: “All we’re doing is moving a line… not gonna change any of the restrictions applicable to the underlying zoning classification.” Thompson said the amendment would allow property owners to change ownership lines without creating new lots.

Planning staff advised caution. Amy (last name not specified in transcript), a county planner who participated in the meeting, said the version before commissioners did not match what the applicant actually requested and that the Planning Commission issued an unfavorable recommendation. She told the board that “what was in the text amendment was not what the applicant was actually asking for,” and she recommended additional drafting to “allay some of the concerns that you’ve heard.”

Commissioners asked clarifying questions about how many TDR acres exist countywide and the history of the county’s TDR program. Amy and other staff explained that existing TDR easements total thousands of acres and that earlier changes to state law and county policy reduced the practical value of newly created TDRs, although existing easements remain important to the county’s preservation statistics. During discussion staff and commissioners referenced the state septic law and changes since 2008 that limited major subdivisions on septic systems, reducing demand for development rights compared with earlier years.

The transcript records a formal motion to adopt the ordinance and a recorded voice vote. The meeting transcript records the vote tally as “5 against, 1 absent,” and does not include a clear, explicit statement in the transcript text that the motion carried. Commissioners debated whether the draft should be returned for redrafting and more precise administrative language.

Why it matters: TDR easements are a key tool in Queen Anne’s County’s farmland preservation strategy; changing rules for how existing TDRs can be reallocated or reconfigured could affect the county’s eligibility for MALPF and alter long-standing easement protections.

What’s next: Planning staff and the sponsor agreed there is room to rework the amendment. Commissioners discussed returning the measure to staff for clearer language before further action.

Ending note: Commissioners heard multiple public comments and technical clarifications before voting; the transcript shows an unclear final tally and staff told the board the draft needs refinement to avoid unintended consequences for preserved lands.