Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cumberland County seeks mapping, permit and housing changes in state redevelopment plan cross-acceptance
Summary
County planning staff say they secured full municipal participation in cross-acceptance and pushed the state for planning-area changes, sewer and housing funding, and permit time limits; a draft state schedule sets public comment and final plan dates this fall and winter.
Cumberland County planning staff told the Board of County Commissioners on July 15 that they completed cross-acceptance work on the draft Statewide Strategic Plan and negotiated with state officials on mapping, infrastructure funding and other local priorities.
The presentation, led by Matt Bosarski and Elena Gable of the county planning department, said the county produced cross-acceptance response templates (CARTs) for all 14 municipalities and an overarching county CART, and that the county achieved 100% municipal participation in the process. The county presented mapping updates — existing land use, 2020 land-cover, environmental constraints, utilities, and a countywide zoning layer — and used those data to request changes to the state planning-area designations in areas it says developed historically as hamlets, villages or crossroads.
The county identified several priorities it pushed in negotiations with the state Office of Planning Advocacy and the State Planning Commission, including modernization of the electric grid, recognition and credit for state-owned open space in tax assessments, support and funding for sewer expansion, funding to rehabilitate older housing stock, strategies to support agricultural and resource-based economies, and reasonable time limits on state permits and approvals. Staff said they requested language to recognize small hamlets and historic housing clusters, noting many units are 50 years or older.
Bosarski described a public map viewer the county posted that shows current state planning areas compared with the county’s proposed changes. He demonstrated a slider tool that highlights proposed changes (yellow) and said some municipalities would see areas reclassified from PA-4 (rural) to PA-3 (fringe) to prioritize infrastructure for future growth. He noted the county used tax-assessment-based land-use data from January 2025 and the 2020 land-cover dataset to “ground truth” municipal maps.
Bosarski said the county held a negotiation meeting with the state in early July and that negotiations “went really well,” covering more than 50 specific topics. He said the state acknowledged many county concerns; a small number of items require follow-up. He also said the county raised concerns about conflicts between the state plan and affordable-housing obligations, and urged more support for agritourism and ecotourism promotion in the Bayshore.
Staff outlined the state schedule cited in the presentation: a state-issued impact assessment on July 30; draft statements of agreements and disagreements from the Office of Planning Advocacy on Aug. 6; a final draft state redevelopment plan in September; public hearings in October; a public-comment deadline on Nov. 26; and State Planning Commission action in December. Mapping changes would be finalized in 2026, the presenters said.
Commissioners asked about local impacts on waterfront and bayshore areas and centers designations; staff said they advocated to make center designations more durable and to create fringe or suburban designations where local development patterns support them. Staff emphasized that the county’s negotiating role — established by county action in 2024 — included visiting municipalities and attending municipal subcommittee meetings throughout the year.
Why it matters: cross-acceptance determines how the state plan identifies areas for growth, protection and infrastructure investment; proposed changes can affect future sewer extensions, transportation investments, redevelopment eligibility and grant priorities. The county’s requests for sewer funding, housing-rehab dollars and permit-time limits, if accepted by the state, could influence local development and infrastructure projects.
Provenance: The county presentation and negotiation timeline were given by Matt Bosarski and Elena Gable during the July 15 commissioners meeting (topic introduction at transcript block beginning s=1054.01; topic finish at s=2161.6348).
