Ideas for commenting on the “merged scenario,” the present draft of Charles County’s Comprehensive Plan. Comment deadline January 20, 2012!
We have an important opportunity to help protect Mattawoman Creek and the many fine waterways and natural resources in Charles County, Maryland, by commenting in support the many good elements in the plan revision.
A note it if you don’t live in Charles County: please comment—especially if you’ve visited an historic site or fished, biked, birded, etc. Stand as testament to the potential for heritage tourism—where economic activity is generated by visiting historic and natural sites. If you have ever used the Indian Head rail trail, visited a state or county park in Charles County, seen Mattawoman Creek or other venue, or visited Mt. Vernon (see #5 below), your input merits attention.
Charles County is revisiting its Comprehensive Plan, the blueprint that lays out where and how the county will grow for the next 30 years. Past plans have promoted sprawl development, with the outcome that Mattawoman is now ailing from loss of forest and the polluted stormwater runoff from overdevelopment. In fact, after two decades of hailing Mattawoman as among “the best, most productive tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay,” state fisheries biologists now report that “planned levels of development [in the Mattawoman watershed] should be reconsidered in light of the extent of declines detected in the fish community.”
The new draft “comp plan" is called the "merged scenario." While it contains serious problems, it nonetheless changes direction by promoting some true smart growth aspects that need our support. Unfortunately, the financial interests that have profited from past sprawl-development policies have jumped into the comp plan process at the 11th hour and are trying to turn back the clock. Your support is needed to assure county officials that the public wants a change for the better.
All it takes is an email to: Amy Blessinger, BlessingA@charlescounty.org
Below is a list of issues that you might wish to consider for your comments. They are divided into two groups: items to support in the merged scenario, and areas that need improvement. You could cut and paste those that you agree with or feel strongly about. Even better, please use your own words for greater impact.
Additional information is be available at:
www.smartgrowthcharlescounty.org
http://www.charlescountyplan.org/document-library
ITEMS TO SUPPORT IN THE MERGED SCENARIO
1. Benefits of Stream Valley Protection.
I agree strongly with protection of the Mattawoman Stream Valley, as recommended years ago by the Army Corps of Engineers. As the Corps noted, stream valley protection is crucial to reducing excess discharge to Mattawoman, and is needed if Mattawoman is to be restored. I also agree with enhanced protection of the other important streams in the county. These improvements in land use are needed to protect water quality throughout the county.
Stream valley protection will make it much easier, and much less expensive, for the county to meet its obligations under the new Chesapeake Bay pollution diet. Stream valley protection is also a way to add resiliency to our landscape in the face of climate change.
2. Absence of Cross County Connector and Waldorf Bypass promote smart growth.
The merged scenario will help stem sprawl development and protect our environment by omitting the Cross County Connector and the Waldorf Bypass. It is to be commended that the merged scenario shifts priority to bring mass transit to Waldorf as a means to promote economic development and relieve congestion on Route 301.
3. Absence of the “development district” improves county outlook.
The county will be much better off because the merged scenario does away with the development district. This area of high zoning was larger than Washington DC and promoted sprawl development. It was the opposite of smart growth. Sprawl costs more to service, and is one reason why real estate county taxes are so high.
Eliminating the development district will help Mattawoman Creek. Development in this huge area has been extremely damaging to the creek by promoting loss of forest, which when left alone slows stormwater flow, returns most of the rainwater back into the air, and sponges up the rest, later metering the water to streams between rainfalls. The rampant replacement of forest with surfaces impervious to rainwater has funneled stormwater into our streams as erosive flows full of pollution from lawn fertilizers, parking lots, and roads. As a result of all this development, the health of Mattawoman’s fish community is now declining. The comprehensive plan must undo the damage and set the stage for restoration.
4. Review of grandfathered projects a necessary and welcome element.
The goal of reducing old “grandfathered” development projects is to be applauded. According to figures released during the comp-plan public process, up to 90% of the expected housing units needed by 2040 are already in the pipeline to be built. This huge amount of development, much of which is in sensitive forested areas, clearly needs to be re-examined to avoid negating the 2012 plan revision, to promote smart growth, to foster the transfer development rights (TDR) program, and to stem the slide in house values.
Reexamination of previously approved but outdated proposals is needed because they are “grandfathered” under the same conditions that led to Mattawoman’s degradation. Furthermore, modern surveys show that housing preferences are changing, with many more people wanting an opportunity to live in walkable urban centers with access to mass transit. Trimming outdated and unneeded projects on the books would help shift the county’s housing profile to meet this changing demand by encouraging investment in the transit-oriented-development (TOD) Activity Centers in Waldorf.
5. Returning Bryans Road to a village concept benefits our rural character, helps Mattawoman Creek, and protects the view from Mt. Vernon.
The merged scenario is to be commended for returning Bryans Road to a village concept, rather than the new city envisioned in the last plan. Urbanizing Bryans Road is inconsistent with protecting Mattawoman Creek because much of the town is located in a “Stronghold Watershed.” Department of Natural Resources deems these watersheds to be the “most important for the protection of Maryland’s aquatic biodiversity.” It would also be inconsistent with the positive desire in the COMP plan to protect the view from Mt. Vernon, a national landmark treasure.
6. Absence of a development scheme for the Port Tobacco River is beneficial.
The 2006 comprehensive is proposed for amendment to include a misnamed “Environmental Recovery Zone” around the Port Tobacco River. The proposal would allow a factor of 10 increase in building densities if the developer somehow improved the environment by 50%, an impossible standard to define or document. The merged scenario of the draft comp plan would instead zone the area for stream valley protection and rural conservation, which are much more appropriate than mega-developments to protect the Port Tobacco River and maintain its rural and historic character.
ITEMS NEEDING IMPROVEMENT OR CHANGE:
a. Relocate the Tech Park now proposed for Bryans Road.
The merged scenario includes a Tech Park in Bryans Road, which was absent in a prior scenario (Scenario 1). The location is extremely inconsistent with protecting Mattawoman Creek, with maintaining Bryans Road as a village, and with the intention of fostering ecotourism. The nearly 300-acre site is adjacent to Chapman State Park, is deeply forested with deep ravines, and is nearly 50% Mattawoman stream valley. In addition most of the site provides uncommon “forest interior” habitat for declining songbirds, contains a wetland of special state concern, and feeds one of Mattawoman’s highest quality tributaries that still supports migratory fish spawning. It is well known that developing the headwaters of such streams degrades water quality, physical habitat, and living resources.
The county’s economic consultant for the comp plan concluded that a new Tech Park is not even needed in the county. Even so, the Tech Park could be more beneficially sited at the navy base in Indian Head, or as a means to redevelop the many vacant store fronts in the town of Indian Head that would benefit from revitalization.
b. Rural conservation zoning of 1 in 5 is not effective in preserving rural character.
It is widely acknowledged that the current “rural conservation” zoning of 1 housing unit per 3 acres (“1-in-3”) has led to sprawl development. The consultants tell us that this zoning is producing an effective yield of 1-in-5. Hence, our own backyard illustrates what studies have shown, that 1-in-5 zoning does not adequately protect our rural areas. Rural conservation zoning should be at least 1-in-10.
The far-flung sprawl development that 1-in-5 zoning would induce is known to be among the most expensive for taxpayers to service with police, fire, road maintenance, schools, school bussing, water, sewer, stormwater management, and more. Importantly, 1-in-5 zoning is also counter to a successful transfer development rights program.
c. Upzoning the “deferred development district” is a step backwards.
While eliminating the development district is an excellent idea, upzoning the large portion of it called the deferred development district is counterproductive. Changing the zoning from its current 1 housing unit per 10 acres (“1-in-10”) to 1-in-5 is an invitation to sprawl development (the consultants admit that the present 1-in-3 zoning that is causing so much development in the county effectively fills at a rate of 1-in-5).
The county’s Mattawoman Creek Watershed Management Plan recommends that the deferred development district retain its 1-in-10 zoning. Now that Mattawoman is known to be seriously declining, even with the 10-acre zoning in place in the deferred development district, why does the merged scenario now propose denser zoning there, counter to the watershed management plan recommendation?
d. The Water Resources Element is not being effectively used.
Maryland requires a new chapter in the comp plan called the Water Resource Element (WRE) that is supposed to ensure adequate drinking water, wastewater treatment, and stormwater management. Stormwater from development is harming Charles County waterways, especially Mattawoman Creek. The state recommends that the WRE be used early in the comp plan process to examine the pollution loads to waterways from land-use, and then to adjust the plan until these loads are reduced to acceptable levels. Yet it appears that the WRE will be tacked on at the end of the process, where land-use adjustments to the plan are less likely to occur. The WRE staged for the 2006 comp plan showed that pollution loads were exceeded for the Port Tobacco River and Mattawoman. Without bringing the WRE in sooner, a similar outcome is likely.
e. Expansion of Indian Head would harm Mattawoman Creek and could harm the navy base.
Unfortunately, the merged scenario shows the town of Indian Head expanding up Route 210 and down Route 225 through annexation. Instead, the comp plan should ensure Indian Head’s small-town character in order to promote it as a destination for heritage tourism. It is the terminus of the very popular Indian Head rail trail, it is on both the Potomac River and Mattawoman Creek, and it is very near Chapman State Park and to the other natural and historical features. The proposed annexation would bring development up to the boundary of the state park and would mar the rail trail experience. Hence annexation for more development is clearly counterproductive to the ecotourism goals of the comp plan.
Expansion of Indian Head makes it less likely that redevelopment will occur in the vacant storefronts now populating the town. The comp plan should strive to make Indian Head better—not bigger.
The comp plan should ensure that the navy base is not hampered by additional new development and traffic. Why would the comp plan advocate for more development along Route 225, a major transportation route for the base?
f. Extending Middletown Road would damage Mattawoman Creek and Port Tobacco River.
The merged scenario calls for extending Middletown Road as a four-lane highway down to route 301. It is curious that this extension would be proposed, since there is already a four-lane connection to Route 301 from recently widened Middletown Road via the recently widened section of Billingsley Road. The extension would occur in, and invite development into, the drainage to Old Woman’s Run, a high-quality Mattawoman tributary protected by antidegradation regulations. It would also require crossing Pages Swamp, the valuable and important headwaters to the Port Tobacco River. Further, both of these waterways have official “pollution diets” that are not being met. This aspect of the merged scenario should be eliminated, as was the case in the prior Scenario 1.