The Charles County Planning Commission voted 4-3 not to amend a Priority Preservation Area (PPA) element to the 2006 Charles County Comprehensive Plan on Monday night. Planning Commission Vice Chairman Joe Richard said the vote, along with a previous vote disapproving the PPA in the 2012 Comprehensive Plan, has resolved the issue.
The planners spent close to a half hour debating the wording of the motion after a motion rejecting the PPA in the January 23, 2012 was worded in a way that it actually passed the PPA element, sending it to the Charles County Board of Commissioners. The commissioners sent it back to the planning commission, where a motion to kill the PPA in the last meeting failed on a tie vote.
“If you recall, to not include the PPA in the 2006 or 2012 plan, that motion was a tie vote and did not pass,” Planning Commission Chairman Courtney Edmonds said. “Given where we are now, we have not taken definitive action on the PPA. Section 3.7 (or Article 66B) requires us to reach definitive action.”
Under section 3.7 of Article 66B, inaction constitutes approval.
“The question then is, are we recommending approval for the 2006 plan,” Joe Richard asked Elizabeth Theobalds, who is the assistant county attorney assigned to the planning commission. “The issue is amending the 2006 plan? My motion is not to recommend an amendment to the 2006 plan to include the PPA. That’s the legislation that was voted against on January 23rd. The Commissioners, at any time, could have approved it right there. They could have recommended the staff do the studies. One of the commissioners attempted to do that.”
“On the one hand, it was voted to withdraw from the 2006 plan,” Edmonds said. “Now, we’re saying we’re going to vote to reject it from the 2006 plan. It sounds kind of similar to the vote we previously had. There have been motions on the floor and have been voted on and we found they were meaningless. That’s why we’re discussing this.”
“The intent is to reject consideration of the PPA,” Planning Commission Member Lou Grasso said to Theobalds. “If that was his intent, tell me what language would satisfy.”
Richard and Edmonds then verbally sparred over the debate, with Richard saying Edmonds was out of line and said they were discussing technicalities. Edmonds said they were discussing the legalities of Richards’ motion.
“What I don’t want to do is to take another vote that results in a situation whereas the Board of County Commissioners, county attorney or assistant county attorney can say we didn’t take action,” Edmonds said. “My question to counsel is, if we vote on Mr. Richards’ motion, does that constitute action?”
“We’ve made it clear that we don’t want to amend the PPA,” Grasso said.
As the sparring continued, Edmonds then said to Richard, “You’re not the chair and I haven’t had my question answered. Does Mr. Richards’ motion satisfy action?”
“My motion is, frankly I’m not going to repeat the motion,” Richard said. “It is definitive action. Mr. Chariman, I am not sure what we’re asking. I am moving that this commission does not recommend an amendment to the 2006 plan to include a PPA.”
“That counts as inaction,” Theobalds said.
“The fact that you can’t clearly state what your motion is shouldn’t be our problem,” Edmonds said to Richard. I’m asking if Mr. Richards’ motion puts us back where we started where no action was being taken.”
“None of this has been addressed and I
