Planner: RSFA rezoning would correct 'mistake' in Westphalia map and implement sector plan
Loading...
Summary
Mark Ferguson, an expert land planner, told the hearing the property’s AR zoning was a likely mistake in the 2007 sectional map amendment and that limited RSFA zoning would implement the Westphalia sector plan’s residential‑low vision while protecting buffers and environmental features.
Mark Ferguson, accepted by the examiner as an expert land planner, recommended forwarding a recommendation of approval for the requested RSFA rezoning, saying it would implement the Westphalia sector plan’s vision for residential‑low transitional areas. Ferguson argued the retention of AR (formerly RA) zoning on the subject property in the 2007 sectional map amendment was a mistake because foreseeable facts—adjacency to Westphalia Town Center, planned public sewer/water, and surrounding rezonings—were not meaningfully considered.
Ferguson described the property and surrounding context in detail, citing WSSC system maps and his own survey exhibit. He noted a constructed trunk sewer in Back Branch near the site and said printed and online versions of the generalized future land use map differ; the online PG Atlas shows a residential‑low designation consistent with the sector plan while an older printed version can appear to show rural/agricultural shading.
On zoning choice, Ferguson said RSFA is an appropriate tool because it provides smaller minimum lot sizes and lot‑width flexibility that make it feasible to achieve the sector plan’s residential‑low densities (up to 3.5 dwelling units per acre) while preserving forest, environmental buffers and historic road character. He explained the applicant proffered conditions limiting development to single‑family detached units and not exceeding the residential‑low density range; those proffers, he said, would implement plan recommendations and moderate transitions to adjacent neighborhoods.
The hearing included cross‑examination on legal limits for conditioning Euclidean zones. Counsel and Mr. Brown pointed out the district council cannot legally restrict permitted uses in a Euclidean zone once applied (for example, RSFA ordinarily permits townhouses), and the parties discussed a private covenant as a practical tool to limit certain uses if the council cannot impose the condition directly. Ferguson acknowledged the legal constraints but maintained the requested RSFA with proffered conditions would implement the sector plan and be compatible with surrounding development.
Applicant counsel summarized the record in a closing argument, asserting substantial evidence supports a mistake finding in 2007 and that the narrow RSFA request with binding conditions would not increase density beyond county policy or harm public health and safety. The examiner closed the record pending submittal of documents requested during the hearing.
Next steps: the record will be closed when the applicant files the promised documents, after which the examiner will forward a recommendation to the district council.
