Calvert County commissioners debate zoning overhaul; planned unit developments draw sharp objections

Planning staff presented a second-pass draft of a comprehensive zoning ordinance update and asked the Board of County Commissioners for policy direction on several unresolved topics, including planned unit developments (PUDs), short-term rentals, electric-vehicle charging, parking standards, the Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) district, agricultural processing, accessory-structure thresholds, electronic message centers and grandfathering rules.

Mary Beth Cook, director of Planning and Zoning, introduced the topics and said staff had worked through a year of work sessions and citizen input and were seeking decisions so a second draft could be released. Staff framed PUDs as a tool allowing a developer to combine residential, commercial and institutional elements and offer explicit "public benefits" — for example community centers or libraries — in exchange for flexibility from the zoning code.

Several commissioners voiced strong opposition to including PUDs in the ordinance. Commissioner Hart said the approach "relies on the credibility of who sits in these seats," adding, "I am adamantly against these PUDs because it relies on the credibility of who sits in these seats and not enough on the public out there and staff." Other critics described PUDs as a form of contract or "spot" zoning that could advantage deep-pocketed developers and undermine uniform application of code.

Supporters said PUDs are a useful planning tool to engage developers earlier and negotiate public benefits. One commissioner pointed to a past redevelopment where negotiated text amendments left the county with fewer public benefits and suggested a PUD process could have produced better outcomes by involving residents in the concept stage.

On short-term rentals staff reported platforms already collect and remit local taxes and commissioners agreed active zoning regulation was not required at present; enforcement of nuisance behavior remains a police matter. On electric-vehicle charging and parking, commissioners favored incentives over rigid mandates and asked staff to pursue a countywide parking study before making broad reductions to minimum parking requirements.

The board discussed the proposed IMU district to introduce mixed commercial uses in industrial parks; staff removed a proposal to permit adult-entertainment uses after public concern. Planning staff outlined options to allow limited on-farm poultry/seafood processing with state licensing and setbacks, and recommended raising the local accessory-structure permit exemption from 150 to the state maximum of 200 square feet.

Jason Brinkley, deputy director of planning, presented a revised capacity analysis showing a wide range of potential housing yield depending on zoning choices and the availability of transfer-of-development-rights (TDRs). Commissioners asked staff to return with targeted analyses (e.g., how a 4-dwelling-per-acre cap in some town centers would affect mixed-use outcomes) and reserved an August follow-up meeting; staff proposed a public‑hearing timeline leading to a BOCC hearing on Dec. 10.

The discussion produced clear direction on several narrower items (short-term rentals, accessory-structure threshold, limiting EMC expansion) and left the larger question of PUD inclusion unresolved; commissioners requested additional analysis and drafting options to constrain PUDs with strict public-benefit requirements and enhanced public-participation steps if the tool remains in the draft.