CHARLES COUNTY CRITICAL AREA PROGRAM Comprehensive Update 2009
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area All lands and waters within 1,000 feet beyond the landward boundaries of state or private wetlands and the heads of tides 30,424 acres within Charles County Critical Area Three land classifications: Classification Acres Resource Conservation Zone 27,903 Limited Development Zone 2,052 Intense Development Zone 469
Charles County Critical Area Program Last revised and re-adopted June 2001 Since that time, there have been several minor amendments to the State law Were incorporated into County Program periodically as Zoning Text Amendments Comprehensive Review 2009 Incorporate most recent State Legislation Senate Bill 751, passed 2006 Senate Bill 1030, passed 2007 House Bill 1253, passed 2008 (includes subsequent regulations)
Recent Legislation Senate Bill 751 Clarified definition of what constitutes a Program Refinement and Program Amendment and the review process for these requests Clarified existing growth allocation requirements Senate Bill 1030 Required local jurisdiction compliance with existing variance regulations even if they had not yet been included in the local program Note: Insignificant to the day to day function of the Program and no direct impact to property owners
Recent Legislation (continued) House Bill 1253 Effective July 1, 2008 Strengthened the authority of the Critical Area Commission Granted authority to adopt regulations regarding numerous components of the program
Program Amendments Proposed amendments reflect legislative requirements that became effective July 1, 2008 and are currently enforced by Charles County, even though they have not yet been incorporated into the County s Program Summary of Amended Areas of the Program Resulting from HB 1253 Critical Area Buffer Shore Erosion Control Growth Allocation Lot Coverage Lot Consolidation and Reconfiguration Variances
Program Amendments (continued) Critical Area Buffer Expansion: Expanded to a 200-foot minimum in the Resource Conservation Zone for changes in use or new subdivisions
Examples of Critical Area Buffers Friendship Farm Park Nanjemoy Popes Creek St. Ignatius
House Bill 1253 (cont.) Shore Erosion Control: Non-structural methods required to the extent feasible Non-structural methods Structural methods
Program Amendments (continued) Growth Allocation: Process for development in the Critical Area Guidelines are now standard requirements Adopted criteria identified in COMAR that must be considered with an application Such as location in a priority funding area, floodplain, coastal flood hazard area, habitat protection area, etc.; and, consistency with Comprehensive Plan Regulations have been approved and included in COMAR
Program Amendments (continued) Lot Coverage: Replace impervious surface with lot coverage Removes credit for use of semi-pervious materials Lot Consolidation and Reconfiguration: Requires County to adopt procedures, approved by the Critical Area Commission, to bring grandfathered properties into conformance with current Regulations
Program Amendments (continued) Variances: Establishes administrative variance procedures for expansion or redevelopment of legal non-conforming structures Allows Planning Director to make findings and approve request Requires notification to Critical Area Commission of variance outcome 30 day waiting period for permits associated with variances
Program Amendments (continued) Violations and Enforcement: Charles County Critical Area Program currently contains the following requirements: Ability to assess a civil penalty, not exceeding $10,000 per day Determination of civil penalty shall be based upon the gravity of the violation, willfulness or negligence, environmental impact Mitigation required at 3:1 ratio House Bill 1253 requires: Requires a civil penalty to be accessed based upon the gravity of the violation, willfulness or negligence, environmental impact, and the cost of restoration Each calendar day the violation exists is a separate offense Payment of civil penalty and completion of mitigation must occur prior to County providing approval of any associated request
Clearing within Buffer Violation Examples Construction without permits
Program Amendments (continued) Violations and Enforcement (continued): Mechanism for assessment of civil penalties: Three types of infractions being defined by the Program: Minor Infraction includes clearing less than 1,000 square feet, construction of structures less than 100 square feet in size, construction of a pier approved by MDE but not approved by the County Moderate Infraction includes clearing of 1,000-4,999 square feet, construction of structure 100-199 square feet in size, construction of a pier without the approval of the County or Maryland Department of the Environment Major Infraction--includes clearing of 5,000 or more square feet, construction of structures 200 or more square feet in size, violation of a habitat protection plan
Program Amendments (continued) Violations and Enforcement (continued): Assessment based upon the gravity of infraction and number of offenses: MINOR INFRACTION MODERATE INFRACTION MAJOR INFRACTION FIRST OFFENSE $50 $100 $500 SECOND OFFENSE $100 $200 $500 THIRD OFFENSE $150 $300 $500 SUBSEQUENT OFFENSES $200 $400 $500
Comprehensive Review 2009 Opportunity To review the Program and propose changes to improve administration of the Program Experiences from Villages of Swan Point Largest growth allocation for Charles County, and state as a whole Allowed Planning staff to gain a new perspective on the Program and identify areas where clarification is needed
Planning Division Proposed Amendments In addition to amendments required by recent State law, Planning staff is proposing several changes to improve administration of the Program Moving all regulatory aspects of the existing Critical Area Program document into the Zoning Ordinance Moving all history / background aspects of the existing Critical Area Program into the Comprehensive Plan during the next Comprehensive Plan update
Critical Area Buffer: Requiring community piers in Major subdivisions within the Limited Development Zone and Resource Conservation Zone as a protection measure for the Buffer and special habitats Minor fill provision to allow repair of existing yards after storm events (limited to less than 5,000 square feet of disturbance and less than 100 cubic yards of fill) Provision to allow erosion control above mean high water and provide construction and submittal standards Stress that no clearing is permitted for agricultural use in the Buffer Clarification of trail construction criteria regarding size, use, accessibility to the public
Examples of minor fill for lawn repair
Critical Area Buffer (continued) Changing the term Buffer Exemption Area to Buffer Modification Area Within the Buffer Modification Area Clarifying the different setbacks from the water for residential and commercial uses Permitting accessory structures between the principal structure and the water, with a minimum setback from the water Clarification on how the Buffer is expanded for non-tidal wetlands and adjacent environmentally sensitive features Requiring staking of the Buffer when development activities are proposed within 50 feet Requiring permanent signage of the Buffer when managed by a Homeowner s Association and within 50 feet of a buildable lot
Additional Amendments Allow improvements to property necessary to accommodate a physical disability Address clearing for agricultural land outside of the Critical Area Buffer Clarification of mitigation planting requirements and how plant materials receive credit
Agricultural fields with forested Buffers
Additional Amendments (continued) Limit clearing within the Limited Development and Resource Conservation Zones to 30% unless a variance is approved by the Board of Appeals Currently, there is no limit on the amount of clearing that may be approved Includes provision to allow the clearing of up to 8,000 square feet on grandfathered lots one-half acre or less in size 8,000 square feet coincides with the average area cleared over the past several years on
Comprehensive Review 2009: Map Amendments Review existing maps to identify opportunities to facilitate implementation of the County Commissioner Waterfront Development Goals and for consistency with the Waterfront Development Study already adopted by the County Commissioners Proposed as a Second phase of the Comprehensive review process
Process Text update processed as Zoning Text Amendment Planning Commission public hearing and work session County Commissioner s public hearing and work session
Process (continued) Critical Area Commission approval required Critical Area Commission staff review encouraged throughout process Upon approval by County Commissioners, submit formal request for approval of Program Amendment to Critical Area Commission Critical Area Commission to assemble a panel and hold a hearing
Process (continued) Critical Area Commission (cont.) Introduction of update at subcommittee meeting Critical Area Commission meeting and vote Acceptance of Critical Area Commission amendments or conditions by County Commissioners
Requested Action: Staff is seeking approval to move forward with the legislative process and request a Planning Commission public hearing date