Region 4 Recommendations

Dear Councilwoman Fiedler and fellow Councilpersons,

Thank you for taking the time to review the following position paper on Bills 27-24 and 28-24 regarding the draft plan for comprehensive and consistency changes to zoning in Region 4 of the Counties, General Development Plan 2040 (GDP), we would like to offer the following thoughts from the Broadneck Council of Communities (BCC).

The BCC is an organization dedicated to the protection of our Peninsula, the promotion of environmental improvements to the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and compliance with our Critical Area Laws. Our members include 15 plus communities on the Broadneck Peninsula along with individual homeowners living on the Broadneck, representing more than 10,000 voters.

Within Region 4, we have focused our study and comments on Arnold, Broadneck and Cape St Claire within the Boundaries of the Broadneck Peninsula. We have reviewed the draft plan, the consistency changes, and the proposed zoning changes outlined. A final plan must be passed by July 20th, 2024, and we hope to provide constructive thoughts and guidance on how we want to see the Broadneck Peninsula developed in the future. We have several concerns to address and will try to be concise in addressing them.

Our Board believes the following regarding consistency changes proposed and contained within the Consistency Change Tables.

1. We are generally opposed to any upgrade in zoning larger than 2 acres where a consistency change is greater than 25% of the parcel of land. We believe the potential for additional zoning, variance, and special exception processes will lead to the unintended consequences of too many new homes constructed in the next 15-20 years – on land that currently composes forested lands or feeds runoff into our streams and creeks on the Broadneck Peninsula.
2. We are in favor of downzoning or keeping existing zoning where possible and hope to see a net increase in Rural (RLD) and Open Space (OS) Properties as a result of the final plan.
3. We understand OPZ’s desire for single lot designations regarding zoning, but we believe both the community and local residents have a better understanding of the use and want to protect against future creep of development, a known unintended consequence of a one-policy fits-all solution.
4. Also, regarding specific properties, here is a summary of comments on the properties we have strong feelings about their future development. 

CZ-R4-ARN 102 – We want the split zoning to remain on this County Park and not risk future development of the property. The need to protect the money invested in the property can be done with split zoning, while upzoning to unify the property removes a layer of protection and exposes this large property to increased density of future development.

___________

This set of properties sits at the edge of the watershed for the headwaters of Mill Creek. The loss of forest and environmental protection and traffic congestion is not a win for our community or the county.

CZ-R4-ARN-501 – Against upgrades from RLD to R1. The trade-off for additional housing (and maybe one “affordable” unit) is not a good deal, for traffic and environmental reasons.
CZ-R4-ARN-508 – Keep existing split zoning of RLD/R1 or reduce to RLD if possible.
BDN-001 – We would like to see 6 N. Old Mill Bottom Rd remain R1 and support it remaining R1, as recommended. This location is next to wetlands and needs a higher level of protection with less development.
BDN-004 – We would like to see 1016/ 1024 E College Parkway remain R1. This is the remaining watershed for the head of Meredith Creek. We want this stream well protected.

___________

BDN 007 – We support keeping MA3 or switching to the new MA1B zoning for the Safe Harbor Podickory Point Yacht Club which is located deep within the surrounding communities. The possibility of an increase in commercial activity would be detrimental to the surrounding residents. You have received excellent letters from the community that we agree with.

____________

These properties are at the headwaters of various creeks or other lightly developed land on the rural south side of Rt 50. These requests are to minimize development potential in these sensitive areas.

CZ-R4-BDN-008 – Remain Split zoned of RLD/ OS
CZ-R4-BDN-009 – Remain Split zoned of RLD/ OS
CZ-R4-BDN-013 – Remain RLD, no upgrade to C1 – minimize expanding into residential
CZ-R4-RLD BDN-101 – Agree with recommendation to RLD for 1037 Skidmore Drive.
CZ-R4-BDN-06 – Agree with a recommendation to OS
CZ-R4-BDN-015 – 161 Ferguson Rd. – Remain RLD, reject Commercial zoning. This punches a hole in the forest block. No change to surrounding zoning. This upzoning would be speculative – predicting events to surrounding properties that has not happened.

____________

North of Rt 50

CZ-R4-BDN-219/1024/1018 – Please keep the split zoning of RLD. These properties back up to the Whitehall Creek stream and should have more protection for the future. Do not upgrade the entire parcel  to C3 per the recommendations for 94 N. Old Mill Bottom.
CZ-R4-BDN-202 – This large-scale upgrade of 61 plus acres of mostly natural habitat from RLD to R1 would be detrimental to our natural habitat, and infrastructure and would drastically affect the rural feel and designation of Broadneck Road and Middletown Road in an area already overpopulated with a lack of key infrastructure.

_____________

We are against upgrades from RLD to R1 in the Mill Creek Watershed. This is not a good deal, for traffic and environmental reasons. Protect the watershed of Mill Creek.

CZ-R4-BDN-501 – Please keep these 14 acres of Shot Town Road as RLD and do not permit the increase to R1.
CZ-R4-BDN-502 – Please keep these 4 acres of Shot Town Road as RLD and do not permit the increase to R1.
CZ-R4-BDN-503 – Please keep these 2 plus acres of Shot Town Road as RLD and do not permit the increase to R5.
CZ-R4-BDN-110 – Against upgrade to R1, should remain RLD
CZ-R4-BDN-203 – This large-scale upgrade of 20 plus acres of mostly natural habitat on Shot Town Road from RLD to R1 would be detrimental to our natural habitat and Infrastructure. It would drastically change the middle of the Broadneck Peninsula.
CZ-R4-BDN-218 – Please keep to RLD/ R1 and do not allow the upgrade requested of R1/R5

_____________

These properties are in the watershed of Mill Creek’s headwater streams on the North side of Rt 50. These requests to retain split zoning are to minimize development potential in these sensitive areas.

CZ-R4-BDN-1140 – Retain OS split zoning
CZ-R4-ARN-1345 – Retain OS split zoning

______________

These properties are in the watershed of Mill Creek’s headwater streams on the South side of Rt 50. These requests to retain split zoning are to minimize development potential in these sensitive areas.

CZ-R4-BDN-1027– Retain OS split zoning
CZ-R4-BDN-1172– Retain OS split zoning
CZ-R4-BDN-1120– Retain OS split zoning
CZ-R4-BDN-1159– Retain OS split zoning
CZ-R4-BDN-1090– Retain OS split zoning
CZ-R4-BDN-1091– Retain OS split zoning
CZ-R4-BDN-1092– Retain OS split zoning
CZ-R4-BDN-1148– Retain OS split zoning
CZ-R4-BDN-1243– Retain OS split zoning

____________

The heads of Whitehall and Ridout Creeks need as much protection as possible. Please retain split zoning to minimize development potential.

CZ-R4-BDN-1228 – We are opposed to the upzoning of portions of 1430 Whitehall Road from OS to RLD.
CZ-R4-BDN-1251 – We are opposed to the upzoning of portions of 609 Holly Dr from OS to RLD.
CZ-R4-BDN-150 – We are opposed to the upzoning of portions of 621 Holly Drive from OS to RLD.
CZ-R4-BDN-1126 – We are opposed to the upzoning of portions of 1701 Pleasant Plains from OS to RLD.
CZ-R4-BDN-1126 – We are opposed to the upzoning of portions of 1701 Pleasant Plains from OS to RLD.
CZ-R4-BDN-1168/1169 – We are opposed to the upzoning of portions of 1514 Whitehall Rd from OS to RLD.
CZ-R4-BDN-1183– We are opposed to the upzoning of portions of 1541 Cedar Lane Farm Rd from OS to RLD
CZ-R4-BDN-1226 – We are opposed to the upzoning of portions of 1500 Whitehall Rd from OS to RLD

____________

CZ-R4-CSC-104 – We support Cape St Claire Improvement Association, Inc in removing R5 from this parcel and using split zoning as they currently use the property at 1038 Lake Claire Drive as OS & MA1.

_____________

We hope that you are able to take the time to look into each of these cases and examine the merits of the changes being proposed. We realize years of work have delivered us to these pending bills involving thousands of hours by County employees and volunteer citizens through the CAC, SAC and PAB process. We hope you hear the pleas that we believe have been projected loud and clear by citizens throughout Region 4. Slow development of our County, don’t follow the conventional Smart Growth Goals of the past, focus on smart growth by building existing infrastructure to support future growth first, limit the impact on our Peninsulas, which have unique features, limitations and deep impacts on the health of local watersheds and the wider Chesapeake Bay.

We would be happy to meet  in person, via a web meeting or over the phone in the coming week to discuss any and all of these cases.

Thanks in advance for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Beau Breeden
President, Broadneck Council of Communities

________

To review the Recommendations and Maps, go to the County Website