Dr. Jim Long of Accokeek points to a rare magnolia bog he explained would be adversely affected if a proposed 180-acre development is allowed to go forward.

La Plata, MD – The environmental aspect of Charles County zoning in the wake of the recently amended 2016 Comprehensive Plan is already beginning to have reverberating effects for projects already approved by the Charles County Planning Commission.

Consider Guilford, a massive proposed development encompassing 183 acres, 438 units, which include 127 single family homes, 171 townhomes and 140 apartments, approved by the Planning Commission by a narrow 3-2 vote, May 18.

But things are different now.

With the Comprehensive Plan now amended to protect fragile Mattawoman Creek—the headwaters of which would be compromised by Guilford—the Charles County Board of Appeals voted Tuesday, July 12 to dismiss a motion by developers who felt an appeal of the project was unwarranted.

Dr. Jim Long of Accokeek, a staunch environmentalist, has joined with others to appeal the Guilford decision as an aggrieved person.

Roger Fink argued against allowing the appeal to go forward.

“This is merely a stalling event,” Fink stated. “Earlier today, the Charles County Commissioners adopted significant amendments to the comprehensive plan that places restrictions on development. This process was not allowed in Maryland for 70 years until last year, when the General Assembly enacted a statute that allows county commissioners to amend a plan. This allowed the county to amend the comprehensive plan where previously they could only reject or accept that plan.

“An appeal requires authorization by the statute,” he asserted. “There is no authority by statute for this appeal.”

Attorney Kurt Wolfgang, representing Long and others, disputed that claim.

“I have provided to you an opposition for the motion to dismiss,” Wolfgang told the board. “The local statutes for the board of appeals are scattered all over the place in the code and they have essentially been missed by the respondents.

“Local ordinance of course, bows at all points in time to what the state statute says,” Wolfgang said. “That is the controlling provision.

“There is clear code language that says this appeal to the board of appeals may be brought by a person aggrieved by the decision,” he added. “That is the key language.”

“This is a little unusual for us to have, first of all, an appeal brought to the board of appeals,” Chairman Brandon Moon noted. “We’ve got a motion to dismiss the appeal and a counter to that.

“My own views, from my reading of the original motion, the key question has to do with aggrieved applicant and what does that mean; how do we interpret that? Does that apply to the person who feels they are aggrieved or doesn’t it?”

“As far as the local code, I think there’s some confusion in there,” said Board Member James Martin. “When you go back to the state, the state makes it much more clear that any aggrieved party, not necessarily the applicant, can be heard in this.”

“This was a case where the public was not allowed to speak,” Martin added. “That has changed. People need a right to speak.”

Board Member Sean Johnson, admitting that he could be opening Pandora’s Box, felt the local code needs to be reviewed by the county and made clearer, but after consulting with Assistant County Attorney Matthew Claggett, withdrew his motion.

“Counsel shared with us some other litigation pending that has some relevance to this decision and this decision may affect other cases,” Moon explained after the board went into closed session to discuss ramifications of the appeal.

From there the motion to dismiss the appeal was denied.

Those who are fighting to protect one of the county’s most vital resources will have Guilford in their sights when a merit hearing on the appeal comes before the board.

“We’ll let the parties know when that will be,” Moon stated.

Contact Joseph Norris at joe.norris@thebaynet.com