Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Critical Area topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves state-mandated Critical Area updates; debate centers on 'equitable distribution' language
Summary
Commissioners recommended moving TA-25-13, a suite of Critical Area revisions required by the State Critical Area Commission, including changing review intervals, mapping correction criteria, limited pervious-surface exceptions, and new growth-allocation considerations including climate vulnerability; commission approved the package 6–1 after discussion about ambiguous state language on 'equitable distribution of burdens and benefits.'
The Planning Commission voted to recommend adoption of TA-25-13, a set of revisions to Calvert County’s Critical Area provisions requested by the State Critical Area Commission, after a detailed staff presentation and member questions about ambiguous state-mandated language.
Staff explained the changes implement the State Critical Area Commission’s review: the county would move its comprehensive Critical Area review interval from six to 10 years (with a one-year extension allowable with notice), allow corrections to Critical Area classification where a historical mapping mistake can be demonstrated, and provide a limited allowance to exceed lot-coverage limits in Limited Development Areas by up to 500 square feet when approved pervious pavement meeting manufacturer specifications is used. The revision also incorporates factors for growth-allocation decisions that require consideration of climate-vulnerability and impacts on underserved or overburdened communities, and it incorporates habitat-protection-area maps maintained by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Ron Marney, Calvert County environmental planning regulator, and planning staff answered commissioners’ questions about the new ‘‘equitable distribution of burdens and benefits’’ language the state required. Staff said the phrase was state-provided verbatim and that the county had requested clarification from Annapolis but lacked detailed guidance. When asked whether the 10-year map-review interval was adequate given climate change risks, staff said the 10-year interval is the state's minimum and county practice can include more frequent updates if necessary.
Commissioners voted 6–1 to recommend adoption; Commissioner McQueen recorded the sole dissent. The commission noted that the package is largely state-directed and that some wording (particularly the equitable-distribution language) remains ambiguous and may require future clarifications from the state.
The matter will now move to the Board of County Commissioners for final action and the county will continue coordination with the State Critical Area Commission on implementation and mapping updates.
