La Plata, MD – What started out as a discussion on an upgraded parks and recreation plan before the Charles County Planning Commission Monday, July 10 ended up becoming something much different when Commission Member Nancy Schertler proposed asking any new waterfront development to consider water access for Charles County citizens.
“Most of our county is surrounded by water, but most of it is privately owned,” Schertler said, “because waterfront property is so expensive and so difficult to come by.”
Schertler suggested changing the growth allocation process so that if there is a proposed development where there is a change to the density in zoning to develop it, that the county ask developers to consider public access to the water as part of the project.
“Right now, the county doesn’t have a requirement that public access is part of that,” she said. “Swan Point has it,” she added.
“That was a challenge [during growth allocation discussions],” said Charles County Program Manager for Environmental Programs Charles Rice. “The county did not have the tools to enable it.”
“I’m wondering if we could put that as a goal,” Schertler said, “that public access could be part of it.”
“I don’t see any harm in doing that,” Rice replied. “Adding that as a goal I don’t see as a problem.”
Commission Member Gilbert “Buddy” Bowling Jr. asked Schertler just what she meant by “public access.”
“At Swan Point, there’s a mile-long beach,” she stated. “Now the developer has put a parking lot there so the public will be able to park and access the beach. That’s what I mean by public access.”
Rice said the state process drives the growth-allocation process.
“They have a lot of goals for public access too,” he added. “If we highlight that in this plan it will help from the state’s perspective, if we put it in there as a goal.”
“We’re not talking about a boat ramp or piece of beach for private property?” Commission Member Wayne Magoon wanted to know. “We’re not asking for public access to private property?”
“When you’re doing a growth allocation, it would depend entirely on the development,” Schertler said.
“Typically, it would be something like an easement,” Charles County Planning Director Steve Ball said. “In terms of a development, it may be that they donate some and to county for a park or something like that. It’s up to the developer to make a proposal as part of their project. Typically, it would be an easement.”
“It would be project specific,” Rice noted.
“This is a consideration, not something that is mandated,” Magoon stressed for clarity.
The motion passed by a 4-2 margin with Magoon and Bowling both voting against.
The Charles County Commissioners will hold a public hearing July 18 on the final draft of the parks and recreation plan, Rice said.
Contact Joseph Norris at joe.norris@thebaynet.com