Residents and a former commissioner raise notice, fairness and legal concerns; commission directs staff to re-notice contested items

During public comment at the Dec. 30, 2024 Calvert County Planning Commission meeting, several residents and a former commissioner raised concerns about how the special meeting and associated amendment packets had been posted and noticed.

Retired Commissioner Susan Shaw told the commission she was unable to find notice of the meeting under future meetings on the planning commission’s website and warned that failures to document historical changes or to provide cross-checks can cause the county to appear to be changing rules after the fact. "Changing the rules after the fact should be avoided whenever possible. That's what gives the county a bad reputation as a place to do business," she said, and urged consistent treatment and historical perspective in planning decisions.

Attorneys and commenters questioned whether certain comprehensive-plan amendments, map edits and text amendments were properly included on the December agenda despite being in the public packet for the November public hearing. Legal counsel and commissioners discussed whether missing links or agenda entries could create an open-meetings/notice vulnerability (an OMA concern) and what remedies would be required if a court later found notice insufficient.

Members of the public also cited ongoing litigation and local development disputes. Sean McGuire of Save Lusby Inc. said his nonprofit had filed suit challenging the planning commission’s August decision on the Lusby Villas project and asked the commission for support; attorney Steve Oberg asked why a client’s text amendment in the packet was not being addressed tonight. Other speakers praised the commission for scaling back some upzoning and said preserving Rural Community District designations would limit traffic and infrastructure burdens.

In response to the sustained notice concerns and at least one member’s suggestion, a commissioner moved to adjourn and direct staff to prepare proper legal notice and to bring affected items back for formal action at the January meeting. The motion was seconded and carried; the commission adjourned after completing public comment.

Next steps: staff is to prepare revised legal notices and schedule the contested resolutions and amendments for the commission’s January meeting; legal counsel’s discussion of notice and consistency findings suggests any final adoption will be sensitive to open-meetings procedures and could be subject to challenge if notice remains deficient.