Planning Commission’s Purpose
Originally Published: May 30, 2024
Clarity Provided, Public’s Role Defined
During a three-hour meeting on May 13th, the Planning Commission received training on three topics. Jessica Andritz, Land Use and Growth Management (LUGM) Director, opened with an introduction to planning, covering the Comprehensive Plan (CP) requirements, land use categories, zoning districts, priority funding areas, and the differences between the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals. The County Commissioners approved $300K for LUGM to hire a consultant to revise the CP. Andritz noted the Planning Commission oversees this process and must hold one public hearing. A request for proposals was released in April, and an evaluation committee will review the proposals.
State law mandates updating the CP every decade. The current update, delayed due to COVID-19, was due in 2020. Except for the 1966 plan, past CPs were written by LUGM staff with the Planning Commission, government agencies, and community workgroups. The CP includes plans for water, sewer, transportation, land preservation, and education facilities but excludes specific plans for priority funding areas. These areas, like Charlotte Hall, Callaway, and St. James, need blueprints to guide development correctly, not haphazardly. Only St. Mary’s Countians, not a consulting firm, possess necessary knowledge for this process. Since a citizen advisory board will not participate in the process this time, more than one public forum should be held.
LUGM Planner Brandy Glenn discussed the approval process for concept site plans, differentiating between minor and major site plans. Major site plans apply to vacant land development, while minor site plans cover additions, changes in use, or accessory structures and are not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Concept site plans are reviewed by up to 17 agencies, with approval needed from six key agencies: State Highway Administration, St. Mary’s County Health Department, Soil Conservation, MetCom, LUGM, and the Department of Public Works & Transportation (DPWT). Input from the Sheriff’s Office, Dept. of Emergency Services, and Medstar St. Mary’s Hospital is not required.
Planning commissioners requested all correspondence between LUGM staff and the agencies and sought clarity on the Adequate Public Facilities (APF) requirements. Deputy County Attorney John Houser explained that APF is “an easy yes” if all requirements are met or if funding for improvements is allocated. Developers can fund infrastructure improvements, excluding school capacity. The CZO requires APF for roads, sewer, water, fire suppression, storm drainage, and schools but excludes law enforcement and medical services. The County Commissioners must consider revising APF standards biennially, but no revisions have been discussed in the last six years. I have strongly advocated for APF requirement revisions, a major part of my 2022 campaign. Commissioner Ostrow ran on this as well.
Over the past several years, county budget priorities included increasing salaries for county and sheriff’s office employees, expanding emergency services, and funding road improvements. Employee recruitment and retention, expansion of services, and reducing the replacement cycle of aging infrastructure are all issues that would be better addressed with a strong APF policy. If APF included police and EMS, staffing issues could be identified and addressed in a more timely manner. Input from these agencies would provide data on their ability to respond to emergencies, closing an internal communication gap in county government. Lagging road improvements point to inadequate CZO regulations permitting impractical traffic conditions.
Houser covered the Planning Commission’s role and meeting procedures. The Chair has broad authority to operate meetings within the commission’s by-laws. LUGM staff prepare reports, applicants present projects, and the public offers testimony. Just because the public disagrees with a project, Houser noted, does not mean the commission has to act on those concerns. “At the end of the day, you are here to listen to [the public] so they know concerns have at least been listened to by someone, even if they cannot be acted upon,” the attorney stated. The commission must approve projects meeting CZO requirements, regardless of public opposition unless factual arguments for disapproval are presented.
Commissioner Joseph Vankirk inquired about the phrase “health, safety, and welfare of the general public,” but Houser clarified it doesn’t override other CZO provisions. Commissioner Lynn Delahay questioned the necessity of reviewing compliant concept plans to “rubber stamp” them. Houser said reviews happen for the public’s benefit, so they don’t “assume we’re taking bribes under the table.” Though some areas have changed local law giving LUGM staff broader authority to approve projects. Commissioner John Brown questioned the validity of developer-paid consultant reports, but objections based on that wouldn’t hold up in court, Houser said. Commissioner Mike Brown asked who determines school capacity. House said the school system provides input, but LUGM staff make the final decision.
The CZO does not work for the residents of St. Mary’s County. It doesn’t enhance our quality of life, plan adequately for our future, or promote our wellbeing. If the public is just an audience without the ability to affect the process, commission meetings might as well be press releases. Outsourcing the CP revision to a consulting firm compounds the issue. Houser said, “The tool the County Commissioners hand you as the Planning Commission is a magnifying glass for the law, not a blot of white out.” County Commissioner Mike Hewitt recently said Planning Commission members weren’t appointed to “shut down projects” but to consider the “safety and welfare of everybody” while being “receptive and inviting to projects.” This is an interesting stance, given the lack of real authority the County Commissioners have given the Planning Commission.
