Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comments Retroactivity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Farmers and residents push back: retroactivity, contract protections and survey costs dominate Calvert County feedback
Summary
At the information session, multiple landowners and Farm Bureau representatives urged that existing APD contracts not be subject to more restrictive rules, warned retroactive changes could prompt lawsuits, and raised affordability concerns about required boundary surveys and timing for implementation.
During the public comment portion of the Aug. 20 session, landowners and local agricultural representatives delivered repeated objections to applying new, more restrictive rules to existing APD contracts and raised implementation concerns about survey costs, tenant-house treatment, and the timeline for compliance.
What residents said: Wilson Freeland (Prince Frederick) and several other speakers objected to placing the roughly 500+ existing APDs under new restrictions, arguing those owners signed contracts decades ago and should not have entitlements reduced by a later rule. Paige Wyra said the planning commission declined to recommend retroactivity and warned that retroactive changes could constitute a taking and expose the county to litigation. Jerry Pitcher and others said long-standing contracts are effectively property rights that cannot be changed without legal consequence.
Implementation cost concerns: Multiple commenters (including Ben Risley) described boundary surveys as a major financial barrier for new entrants; Risley estimated survey costs for large farms could be tens of thousands of dollars and said the additional $200 per TDR incentive described in the draft would not cover those expenses by itself unless a large number of TDRs are sold in the applicant's first PAR sale. Staff responded that the $200 is a per-TDR supplement intended to offset survey costs and that some state programs also require surveys.
Tenant houses and density: Commenters requested a longer grace period to adjust to new requirements and objected to counting tenant houses against density entitlements; staff said the update aligns text with the recently adopted zoning ordinance and that the county will not remove existing dwellings or retroactively strip already-certified TDRs, explaining such instances would be handled as legally nonconforming situations.
Other concerns: Commenters asked who would pay recordation fees when previously recorded legacy deeds or third-party contracts would need rerecording, whether rural legacy or third-party program contracts (for example, with external partners) would be affected, and how eminent domain scenarios interact with APD contracts. Staff acknowledged those questions and said some legal specifics would be reviewed with county counsel.
Outcome and next steps: Staff collected the comments, invited written submissions (deadline stated as 09/29/2025 in the presentation), and said all comments would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners ahead of a public hearing. Several speakers asked for longer transition timelines and urged a trial period or phased implementation to avoid unintended financial harm to farm families.
