Planning commission recommends Calvert County zoning-ordinance update with conditions

The Calvert County Planning Commission voted 7-0 on Dec. 30 to recommend the county's updated zoning ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners, with conditions including removal of a cited motor-vehicle-services provision and retention of certain areas as rural community district.

Rachel O'Shea, a zoning planner with the county Department of Planning and Zoning, opened the meeting by reading a staff memo that summarized the draft ordinance and its history: the CCZO traces to Ordinance 35-06 (adopted May 2006) and staff produced an August 2024 draft followed by a November 2024 revision that was released for public comment through Dec. 20. "At this point in the process, staff is unable to make changes to the draft," O'Shea said, but she noted the commission could include desired changes as conditions for the Board of County Commissioners to consider.

Why this matters: the draft implements the Calvert 2040 comprehensive plan and restructures how town centers and industrial areas are regulated. Commissioners discussed how the draft treats fueling stations and other motor-vehicle services in different town centers, the creation of three industrial districts (light, heavy and industrial mixed use, or IMU), and protections for existing businesses that might be "grandfathered." The commission's recommendation and the conditions it set will guide how the Board of County Commissioners reviews and votes on the ordinance.

Several commissioners pressed staff for detail on the fueling rules in section 18-10 after public comments flagged apparent inconsistencies. O'Shea said town-center zoning charts were intentionally left more specific so each town center could be updated one at a time and explained that the IMU designation was limited to areas consistent with the comprehensive plan; she added general retail had been removed as a primary permitted use in later drafts and that "accessory retail" remained under consideration with economic-development input.

A commissioner moved that the Planning Commission find the proposed zoning ordinance consistent with the comprehensive plan (including pending plan amendments) but recommended two conditions: remove condition c in section 18-10 (motor vehicle-related services) and keep the areas proposed for residential upzoning as rural community district. Another commissioner seconded; after discussion about friendly amendments and the scope of the commission's advisory role, the commission took a roll-call vote and approved the recommendation.

Legal and procedural questions surfaced during the meeting. Retired Commissioner Susan Shaw told the commission she could not find a notice of the Dec. 30 meeting on the planning-commission page and warned that "changing the rules after the fact" on developed properties could invite lawsuits and create the appearance of unfairness. Legal counsel advised commissioners on making consistency findings tied to pending comprehensive-plan amendments and cautioned that some amendments or map edits may need separate motions or clearer public notice to avoid an Open Meetings Act challenge.

Public commenters pressed several policy points tied to local projects. Jason Skaggs, who identified himself as the owner of Skaggs Site Development and the Dunkirk Sportsplex, thanked the commission for the decision that he said benefited his property. Sean McGuire, representing Save Lusby Incorporated, said his group had filed suit previously over the Lusby Villas decision and asked commissioners for support. Other commenters, including Susan Dzuric of Keep Calvert Country, urged preserving the rural-community district to limit additional development and protect roads and watersheds.

What comes next: staff said where the ordinance text needs further work it can be returned as a text-amendment later or the commission can include conditions to send to the BOCC. After public comment raised notice concerns, a commissioner moved to adjourn and direct staff to correct legal notice and posting issues before the January meeting; the motion was seconded and approved. The commission adjourned at the close of the public-comment period.

Action at a glance: the Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions (motion moved by a commissioner, seconded by a commissioner, passed by roll-call 7-0).