|
|
Meeting Notes posted on this site are NOT
OFFICIAL MINUTES, but can give you different perspectives of what is happening
in the county. More meeting notes can be found here.
Newspaper reports about meetings can often be found in Newsletter
archives - a brief description and a link to the story are in weekly e-newsletters.
May 18,2006 Statement before the Planning Board of Prince George's County
Defense of Rural Tier
My name is Joanne Flynn and I am speaking on behalf of the Greater Baden Aquasco Citizen Association of which I am a board member. I have been designated by vote of the board to speak on behalf of the Association. For the record our address is :
P.O. Box 214 , Aquasco Md. 20608
We are registered under this address with the County but notification was not sent to this address although we have been receiving information on other development activity.I believe this error has now been corrected and we are thankful for the postponement of this hearing till today and the opportunity to address the Board.
We are in opposition to the proposed development known as the Schultze Property Preliminary Plan 4-05141 for the following reasons:
We feel that the plan of development fails to comply with the General and Master Plans although the staff report states that this application is "not inconsistent with the 2002 General Plan Development Pattern policies for the Rural Tier" - The General Plan states one vision for the Rural tier " the protection of large amounts of land for woodland , wildlife habitat, recreation and agricultural pursuits, and preservation of the rural character and vistas that now exist"- There are 7 goals for the Rural Tier only one of which is to "allow large -lot estate residences" most of the goals relate to maintaining rural character and limiting nonagricultural land uses.- it is further stated by the General Plan that any large-lot estate development "needs to be carefully balanced with agricultural pursuits and preservation to maintain its rural character"- the General Plan calls for limiting development and states that very little investment will be made for infrastructure because so little development is anticipated in this Tier.- since the adoption of the General Plan the goal of capturing < 1 % of the county's dwelling unit growth in the Rural Tier has been exceed and has resulted in action by Council to place a moratorium on growth in the Rural Tier and to attempt to develop a TDR program to meet the growth and preservation mandates outlined in the General Plan.- the Subregion VI Master Plan for this area warns that " every time a subdivision is developed under current zoning in these areas, the rural character of land is further eroded"
The staff report description for the Schultz Property site is that of a sensitive ecological wonderland entirely forested with FIDS habitat, steep slopes, erodible soils and extensive PMA areas. The property is located at the Charles Co. line one of the most remote rural areas of the County - the Southern most gateway to Prince George's County. This site is located within the designated Rural Legacy of Area of the County, making it eligible for rural preservation funding. The site is also in the OS zone of the County which the pending TDR legislation indicates is the Primary Sending Area, giving it highest preservation priority.
Adequate Public Facilities
If we look at this development through the blinders suggested by CB 56. and forgo the use of a reasoning mind, we might come to the conclusion that APF are in place for the development but in reality they are not and the health, safety and welfare of the community and future residents is threatened. This plan of subdivision violates the core Purposes of the Subdivision Code Sec. 24-104 Purposes, for example Purpose 1 To protect and provide for the public health, safety and general welfare. Purpose 2 To guide development according to the General Plan, area master plans and their amendments. Purpose 7 To ensure that public facilities will be available and will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision.
The Baden Volunteer Fire Department is the 1st due station for this proposed development. Paid staff is on duty at this station weekdays M-F from 7 AM till 5 PM. At all other times, evenings, night time and weekends the station is manned on a volunteer basis. In other words, the 1st response fire station located in Baden is manned by paid staff 1/3 of the time and volunteer dependent 2/3 of the time. I haven't had enough time to study how CB56 would calculate the mitigation rate for this specific lack of full service response but it troubles the reasoning minds of our community. The too general and convoluted formulas for staffing contained in CB56 do not address the staffing conditions of the 1st due fire station for this proposed development. and do not provide for and protect the health safety and general welfare of possible future residents of this development.
On Saturday morning April 8th, 2006, the Dolesh house on Croom Rd burnt to the ground. The house is locate 3.5 miles from the Baden Fire Station. The response time was over 20 minutes because there was no volunteer driver on duty at the time the call came in. Also since the entire response area for the Baden Station is non-hydrant, water must be transported to the site in their one tanker truck, then a relay system is set up from the closest drafting source - usually a farm pond. In the case of the Dolesh house, the drafting source was a farm pond in close proximity across Croom Rd. But it was too little too late. In comparison the Shultze property is over 3 times this response distance from the Baden Fire Station. I quote the Baden Fire Chief in saying this proposed development " is way out side the boundaries of public safety."
The issue of available water supply for fighting fire has not been fully considered in the staff report. CB 89 required water tanks to be installed at development sites - a 30,000 gal water tank per 9 homes, if a house is over 3,000 ft from the tank another tank would be required. Where are these tanks to be located in this plan of subdivision? This should not be an afterthought.
Emergency Medical Service for the proposed development is located in Brandywine over 20 minutes away, nearly triple the travel time guideline. The outlook for any resident of this proposed development in need of EMS in the next 20 years, is not good.
Rural Character and Rural Preservation
Large subdivisions such as this one are suburban in its style and features, and the requirements it provokes for lighting , roadways and other accessories demonstrate that by its very nature it is not appropriate for the Rural Tier.
If a scenic easement is required to protect and enhance the rural character of a development it should incorporate requirements for exterior lighting of road ways and homes to be in accordance with Dark Sky Design Standards. Suburban style entrance features should not be permitted. The width of a scenic easement should be related to effectiveness as demonstrated on comparable properties. A scenic easement was required for a recent development known as the George Property on Croom Rd., which is a state designated scenic highway. The Easement was 50 ' plus the 10' utilities easement . This easement was not effective in protecting or enhancing the scenic rural view shed.
Request for a Variance
Variances should not be granted at this site. The preferred development pattern for this area of the County is conservation and preservation of our agricultural and natural resources that now exist. The General Plan states that "although large-lot development is anticipated in this Tier, it needs to be carefully balanced with agricultural pursuits and preservation to maintain its rural character. The preservation of remaining environmentally sensitive features is this Tier is a priority for any future development."
Developer hardship has not been proven to exist.This proposal strives for maximum lot yield for residential development. Opportunities exist for limiting development to a minor residential subdivision, establishing a woodland mitigation bank , applying for a Rural Legacy Easement purchase, donating conservation easement resulting in substantial tax benefits, and possible future PDR and TDR opportunities.
The Master Plan for Subregion IV relevant to this property states that :
- "Development in the O-S and R-A Zones does not normally lead to conservation of agriculture, natural resources or open space, nor does it retain the rural landscape..." {p. 75}
- In referring to 5-acre lot development, it says "Although the rural landscape and open-space protection are land use issues directly related to density, the current low-density requirements (ie 5-acre lots) do not guarantee the continuity of rural character"
- " a major goal of this Plan is to preserve the rural living areas, agriculture, woodlands, scenic views, scenic roads...In brief, to preserve the rural character of the area... if development continues in the same form, it will lead to the demise of the rural character. Croom, Naylor, Baden, Aquasco and other local settlements have a sense of identity. They are a key to preserving the rural character of the area". (p. 76)
It is clear from the Master Plan that subdivisions, including those with 5-acre lots, are not to be treated as "rural" : this seems an obvious and common sense conclusion. The Master Plan describes the County's rural heritage as "a welcome visual contrast to urban and suburban areas." It will no longer be a welcome contrast if suburban-style developments resume to their recent intensity and in the style of suburban housing.
An approval of this plan of development would commit the County to support development at the far reaches of the Rural Tier.It will contribute to the suburbanization of the Rural Tier and lead to a need for further investment by the County in infrastructure. Approval would disrupt the County's General Plan towards managing sustainable development and rob not just this local but all of the County, a chance for attaining adequate public facilities.
An approval would violate the core purposes of subdivision code and further threaten the health, safety and welfare of the existing community and new residents.
The application should be rejected for the reasons stated above and the applicant should submit plans for a proposal compliant with the General Plan, Master Plan and the policies for protection of the Rural Tier and sensitive to the local community. " The General Plan says on page 6: "The General Plan will only be effective to the extent that its goals and policies are implemented" It is time that this was done.
- submitted by Joanne Flynn
New -> Civic Associations in Prince George's County
Looking for Prince George's County History? Click here for PGHistory.org
Looking for the official Prince George's County web site? click here
|