Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agricultural Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission balks at moving agricultural-preservation rules to separate regs amid retroactivity concerns
Summary
Commissioners and speakers debated TA-25-03, which would strip agricultural-preservation provisions from the zoning ordinance and place them in separate rules/regulations; public commenters warned the change could retroactively alter property owners' rights in existing APDs; the commission found the amendment not consistent and did not recommend adoption.
A proposed text amendment (TA-25-03) that would move Agricultural Preservation District (APD) provisions out of the zoning ordinance and into separate rules and regulations drew extended debate and public opposition at the Aug. 20 Calvert County Planning Commission hearing.
Staff said the change is intended to place APD administration and bylaws in a more appropriate, separate document and that draft rules/regulations and bylaws have been prepared. Jennifer David, the county’s rural planner working on APD rules, explained staff’s intent to split APD bylaws from rules and to create a single set of rules to apply to all existing and future APDs.
Several commissioners and county counsel raised questions about whether removing language from the zoning ordinance before finalizing the new rules could create a legal or policy gap. Commissioners asked whether owners who placed property in APDs under earlier rules would lose rights or face retroactive requirements. One public speaker representing multiple APD landowners, Paige Lyro, urged the commission to reject the move, saying the proposed change could strip protections owners relied on when they enrolled land decades ago. “I would urge you to reject it,” Lyro said, describing potential due-process and takings claims if rules were applied retroactively.
County counsel and staff flagged the legal risk that removing protections or changing applicable rules could be construed as a taking or subject to due-process challenge; as one participant said during testimony, altering rules that governed a property at the time it was placed in an APD “might be construed as a taking.” Staff and commissioners also debated whether the draft rules/regulations had been reviewed for legal sufficiency and whether the commission should delay action until the rules were finalized.
After public comment and discussion, a commissioner moved that TA-25-03 is not consistent with the comprehensive plan; the motion passed on a roll-call vote. The commission recorded its finding that the amendment is not consistent and did not forward a recommendation for adoption to the Board of County Commissioners.
The debate highlighted landowners’ concern about retroactive application of new rules, the county’s effort to centralize APD administration, and the tension between complying with an administrative rewrite and protecting existing property-right expectations.
