Going forward, Calvert County shall remain PUD-less. The three-letter, government-speak acronym that stands for “planned unit developments” was one of the more provocative items up for discussion during Tuesday’s county commissioners’ meeting.
The question of whether or not to include allowing planned unit developments to be part of Calvert’s revised zoning ordinance was asked of the commissioners by planning and zoning department staff during an update and work session.
The department is tasked with drafting a document to comply with Calvert’s comprehensive plan, a process that began in spring 2023.
“We are here for decisions. We are going to make some changes,” Mary Beth Cook, planning and zoning director, told the board.
During a presentation, planner Will Hager said a section on planned unit developments was included in the zoning ordinance draft.
“A planned unit development is a mixed-use development that must combine residential, with a combination of recreational, commercial and/or institutional elements,” Hager said. “The goal is to achieve a substantially higher-quality development that provides a public benefit that would otherwise not be obtained.”
A planned unit development proposal requires the county commissioners’ approval.
Commissioner Mike Hart (R) expressed ardent opposition to the policy.
“It seems like it makes the county code irrelevant,” Hart said, adding that the policy would be unfair to small businesses. “It sets the table for a whole lot of corruption. The table should be the same for everybody.”
Cook said the aim of a planned unit development “is to get a more attractive product.”
Commissioner Catherine Grasso (R) asked if a planned unit development could be considered a form of spot zoning. She also asked for an explanation on the “public benefit” component.
Planner Rachel O’Shea noted one example would be if the developer promised to build a library or community center if the county provided relief from the land use regulations.
Commissioner Todd Ireland (R) said a planned unit development policy could be a good way “to plan for community needs,” adding it would need to be “restrictive.”
“I think it’s a valuable tool to have in our toolbox,” Commissioner Mark C. Cox Sr. (R) said.
Commissioner President Earl F. “Buddy” Hance (R) conceded he was undecided on the issue.
“My left side fights with my right side,” Hance said. “I am concerned because it makes it easier for three commissioners to make changes.”
Without taking a formal vote, the commissioners rendered a split decision, opting to let the zoning ordinance draft go forward without approving a planned unit development policy.
In other decisions, the board agreed to no policy regarding short-term rentals. Staff’s presentation noted that in order to effectively enforce such a policy more staff would need to be hired for tracking and permitting.
Grasso expressed concerns about “disruptiveness” in neighborhoods where vacationers might temporarily rent a house and disturb other homeowners’ tranquility.
“That would be a call to the sheriff’s office,” Cook said.
Among other zoning policies targeted for tweaking is the possible expansion of areas where electronic signs would be allowed.
Presently, electronic message centers are permitted in Prince Frederick Town Center and in the employment center district only along Route 2/4, Dares Beach Road West, or Route 231 west of Route 2/4.
“We have had some requests from churches outside the town center,” Hager said.
“It is legitimately a driving distraction,” Hart said.
The consensus was that no changes would be made to the current policy.
Cook noted that the zoning ordinance as currently proposed has received plenty of public feedback.
Staff and the commissioners will conduct an additional work session to resolve any questions prior to finalizing a zoning ordinance draft for public view.
Most Popular
Comments / 0