Calvert County Planning Commission recommends zoning ordinance update with conditions

On Dec. 30, 2024, the Calvert County Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of a comprehensive update to the Calvert County Zoning Ordinance intended to align county rules with the Calvert 2040 comprehensive plan.

Staff presented an August 2024 draft and noted the November 2024 revision had been made available to the public with formal notice published Nov. 1, 2024, and the record left open after the Nov. 20 public hearing. Rachel O'Shea, zoning planner, told commissioners the draft is currently ‘locked’ for staff edits and any substantive changes at this stage must be directed by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) through conditions attached to the commission’s recommendation.

The commission’s motion, made during discussion and seconded for consideration, asked the commission to find the proposed ordinance consistent with both the current comprehensive plan and pending plan amendments and included two explicit conditions: removal of condition C in Section 18-10 (motor vehicle and related services) and that areas proposed to change from Rural Community District (RCD) to Residential District (RD) remain classified as RCD because the change was judged inconsistent with the current comprehensive plan. A commissioner who moved the motion said the finding should remain valid “even considering those amendments” so the recommendation would not become inconsistent if the pending plan changes were adopted.

Commissioners spent substantial time probing use charts and how the update treats town centers and industrial areas. Staff described a restructuring that narrows general retail as a primary use in the newly proposed Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) district while creating three industrial districts (light industrial, heavy industrial and IMU) to better reflect existing patterns and provide options for businesses that cannot afford town-center rents. Rachel O'Shea said later drafts removed general retail as a primary use in IMU and that the department would consider allowing accessory retail.

Several commissioners raised concerns about nonconforming uses and whether long-established businesses—such as mixed retail, recreational facilities and light manufacturing in certain industrial parks—would be required to cease current operations if the new definitions applied. Staff said many existing uses would need assessment for nonconforming status and that detailed town-center updates would be addressed separately when each town-center ordinance is updated.

After discussion and brief friendly-amendment exchanges, the commission called the question. The motion to recommend approval with the stated conditions carried unanimously; the chair recorded seven ayes. After the vote, commissioners praised staff for producing the extensive rewrite: one commissioner called it “a monumental task.”

What happens next: the commission’s recommendation is advisory for text changes and is transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners, which will decide final adoption. Staff and legal counsel advised that if the commission or the BOCC seeks post-draft changes, those should be identified as conditions in the recommendation or handled as formal amendments, and that consistency findings should explicitly account for pending comprehensive-plan amendments so the recommendation remains defensible.

Authorities referenced during the meeting included the existing Calvert County Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance 35-06, May 2006) and the Calvert 2040 comprehensive plan. Staff said the fiscal impact for the ordinance update was “none” and that several town-center text amendments and map edits are packaged with the draft for BOCC consideration.