Calvert County (Md.).Planning Dept. Prince Frederick, Md.:Planning Dept.,1980- Land use Maryland Calvert County. Calvert County (Md.). Planning Commission. 4 Calvert County Planning Commission Annual Report 1979 This annual report is designed to serve several functions: summarize the planning activities of the Planning Commission and Planning Department; serve as a resource pamphlet for land use changes and available publications; project future planning needs and activities; and meet the requirements of Section 3.09 of Article 66B of the Annotated Code of Maryland. HD 211 -M3 C35 19O January 1980 PLANNING DEPARTMENT, PRINCE FREDERICK, MARYLAND 20678 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introductory Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. Planning in Calvert County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 3 III. Planning Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 A. Ongoing Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 5 B. Specially Funded Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 C. Other Staff Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 IV. Planning Commission and Department Budgets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 V. Land Use Changes Since the Adoption of the Comprehensive Plan . . . . 11 VI,. Proposed Planning Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A. Comprehensive Plan and Master Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 B. Land Treatment Feasibility Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 C. Special Town Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 D. Community Piers Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 E. Commercial Needs Study . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 VII. Informational Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 APPENDIX A - Subdivisions Considered by Planning Commission in 1979 20 APPENDIX B - Zoning Cases Considered by. Planning Commission in 1979 24 APPENDIX C - Community Planning Districts Map . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 APPENDIX D - Calvert County Population and Households by CPD . . . 27 APPENDIX E - Residential Building Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 APPENDIX F - Total Dwelling Units/CPD/Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 APPENDIX G - Comparative Population Projections . . . . . . . . . . . 30 APPENDIX H - Calvert County Agricultural Preservation Program Map 31 APPENDIX I - Historical Conservation Plan Outline . . . . . . . . . . 32 APPENDIX J - Ongoing Environmental Assessment/Water Quality Analysis . 33 APPENDIX K - Draft Outline of Citizen Participation Program for Review of the Comprehensive Plan and Development of Master Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 APPENDIX L - Planning Department Staff Duties . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 APPENDIX M - Materials Available from the Calvert County Planning Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 I. Introductory Statement DON'T READ THIS REPORT IF you are completely satisfied with the state of all County activities, or IF you are thoroughly familiar with WHO has responsibility-for WHAT in planning in Calvert County, or IF you feel that planning is no concern of yours, or IF you know what is planned for Calvert County's future, or IF you don't care! Calvert County is changing in many ways at an accelerated rate. An agricultural economy is being swallowed by developments housing people who sleep here and work in Metropolitan Washington. The average biennial increase in population is greater than from 1860 to 1950. Since 1974 more than 3,000 residential building permits have been issued. The total assessable base increased from $87 million in FY-71 to $158 million in FY-75 to $819 million in FY-79. State highways and County roads have been greatly improved. There are now four main routes to enter and to leave Calvert. The recreational, educational, and shopping facilities have expanded greatly. The Calvert Marine Museum is a lighthouse attracting more visitors. The Calvert Memorial Hospital is modern and accredited. The Senior Citizens, Center, to be occupied in January 1980, may well serve as a model for rural areas. You can add to the list of change in Calvert County -- some good and some not-so-good. Changes - there have been, and changes - there will be! This we know. We have the choice of several courses of action: 1. Ignore the change, or 2. Tell it to go away, or 3. Attempt to influence the nature and rate of change. If you choose the third course, it would be helpful if you knew what goals are stated in the current Comprehensive Plan, who is responsible for planning, who is responsible for carrying out the plan, how well the objectives have been achieved, and where do we go from here. The purpose of this report is to give you pertinent information and to stimulate your interest in, concern for, and participation in the planning process in Calvert County. Maurice Dunkle Chairman 2 "...The most effective tool of the planning process is citizen involvement..." - Herbert H. Smith The Citizen Guide to Planning II. PLANNING IN CALVERT COUNTY On March 13, 196j, the County Commissioners of Calvert County signed a resolution establishing the Planning Commission for Calvert County. The Commission was charged with the responsibility of making "a complete study of Calvert County." Thus began the first organized effort by Calvert Countians to provide for orderlyIand proper development of the County by means of a Comprehensive Plan. On April 1, 1964, an interim Zoning Ordinance2 was adopted and on June 29, 1967, the first Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance was adopted by the County Commissioners. Since then, three significant changes and improvements in planning have occurred: April 4, 1972 - adoption of the Calvert County Subdivision Regulations October 1, 1974 adoption of the revised Comprehensive Plan (also known as the "Pleasant Peninsula Plan") October 12, 1976 adoption of the Calvert County Road Ordinance Through the adoption of these and other plans, the County residents, County Commissioners, and Planning Commission have had an increasing role in encouraging organized and proper County development. Role of the Planning Commission Appointed by the County Commissioners in accordance with State law, the Planning Commission serves as a citizen review board on County planning decisions. As set forth in Article 66B of the Annotated Code of Maryland, the Planning Commission is both an advisory and decision-making body. In its advisory capacity, the Commission is required to make recommendations concerning rezoning cases, amendments to ordinances, public structures, improvements and lapd acquisitions, and other planning decisions. In its decision-making capacity, the Commission approves all subdivision of land. In both capacities, the Commission solicits comments from appropriate county, state, and federal agencies prior to making recommendations or decisions. Other duties include the Commission's creation, approval, and amendment to the Comprehensive Plan subject to adoption by the County Commissioners; the preparation of an Annual Report; and other reports necessary to proper planning or education of the public concerning planning activities. ------------------------------ lComprehensive Plans generally include an analysis of area and goals and objectives for future growth. 2Zoning Ordinances generally impose use limitations on zoning categories with guidance from the Comprehensive Plan. The land use limitations serve to protect the general public and adjoining properties from adverse uses. Meeting Dates The Planning Commission generally meets on the first and third Thursday of each month in the Courthouse: lst Thursday at 7:30 p.m. in the Permits & Inspections Office Room 001 (basement) 3rd Thursday at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners Hearing Room (1st floor) Contact the Planning Department (535-160O.Ext. 237) to confirm meeting dates. Present Membership Mr. Maurice A. Dunkle, Chairman Prince Frederick - Term expires February 22 1984. Mr. Charles Howes, Vice-Chairman Dunkirk - Term expires February 22, 1983. Mrs. Isabelle Berezoski Huntingtown - Term expires February 22, 1981. Mrs. Veda Taylor Lusby Term expires July 5, 1982. Mr. Earl Thorne Prince Frederick - Term expires February 22, 1980. Mr. Wilbur Ward Dunkirk - Term expires February 25, 1980. Mrs. Randi Vogt Port Republic - Term expires February 22, 1981. Staff Support Mr. Frank A. Jaklitsch, Director of Planning Mr. William R. Pittman, Jr., Associate Planner Mr. Gregory A. Bowen, Assistant Planner Mr. Vivian C. Marsh, Environmental Planner Mr. H. Wilson Dowell, III, Project Planner Mr. Linwood Beverly, Draftsman Ms. Maureen E. Crout, Secretary Ms. Barbara A. Smith, Clerk Typist NOTE: See Appendix L for specific staff duties as set forth in the job descriptions adopted by the County Commissioners in November, 1977. 5 III. PLANNING ACTIVITIES The planning activities of the Planning Commission and Planning Department in 1979 can be categorized as follows: "Ongoing Planning," "Specially Funded Projects," and "Other Staff Projects." A. Ongoing Planning 1. Subdivision Review. 29 major subdivisions and 73 minor subdivisions were reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. A total of 656 lots were reviewed and approved (See Section VII for subdivision information and trends). Planning Commission review includes topography, vegetation, roads, recreation area, setbacks, and whether the subdivision is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Purpose: By authority of Maryland law, the Planning Commission is responsible for governing the subdivision of land to "... . assure sites are suitable for building purposes and human habitation in a harmonious environment.111 2. Rezoning Cates. Fourteen rezoning cases were reviewed by the Planning Commission. Thus far, the Commission has forwarded its recommendations on eleven of these cases (See Section VII for cases and actions taken). The staff report provided for each case includes background information, site description, agency comments, findings, analysis, and recommendations of the Planning Director. Purpose: According to Maryland law, the Planning Commission is required to make a recommendation to the County Commissioners prior to action on a rezoning case by the Commissioners. Providing such recommendations are designed to help the County Commissioners make decisions of maximum benefit to Calvert County. 3. Review of Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. Based on recommendations by the Zoning Inspector, the Planning Department and others, the Planning Commission forwarded recommenda- tions for 17 substantive amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and six substantive amendments to the Subdivision Regulations. The following is a synopsis of three of the more substantive amendments: a. Minimum lot size in R-1 zone Old: 20,000 s.f. with individual water and sewer New: 40,000 s.f. with individual water and 'Sewer Purpose: To insure adequately sized lots where Community water and sewage are not available. lCalvert County Subdivision Regulations, Article 1, p. 1. b, Site Plan Review Old: Silent New: For new commercial, industrial, Or multi-family dwelling developments. Lighting, public utilities, screening/buffering, landscaping, common areas, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, and building location and arrangement are to be reviewed by the Planning Commission within 90 days of completed application. Purpose: To insure safe and proper silte development. c. Open Space Requirements (l) Percent of dedicated land 3% slope or less Old: 25% New: 7S% (25% of land in streams, flood plains or steep slopes) (2) Amount of land dedicated' Old: .05 acre per family unit (first three exempt) New: 6-15 family units one acre (first*five exempt) .16+ family units one plus .10 acre for each additional unit.) (3) Reduction in Dedication for Preservation of Historic Buildings Old: Silent New: As long as a minimum of one acre is dedicatej Purpose: To insure adequate and suitable recreation areas for new subdivisions. The revised Zoning Ordinance and Subaivision Regulations are available in the Permits and Inspections Office at a cost of $6.00. 4. Agricultural Land Preservation Program. With recommendations from the Planning Commission, the County Commissioners amended the Zoning Ordinance so as to implement the Program. At the same time four transfer zones were created by resolution. Since then three applications for Agricultural Preservation Districts have been accepted by the Agricultural Preservation Advisory Board. After reviewing the suitability of the farms, the Board approved the creation of the three farms as Agricultural 'Preservation Districts. (See Appendix H for mapping of Transfer Zones and Agricultural Preservation Districts.) Purpose: In recent years, the County has experienced checker- board development of its good farmland. The purpose of the Program is to form protected farm communities and direct growth away from these 'areas through transfer of development rights to Transfer Zones. S. Staff Support. Staff support is given to: County Commissioners Environmental Commission Planning Commission Historical District Commission Agricultural Preservation Maryland Historical Trust Advisory Board Committee The staff support includes special studies, committee coordination and preparation of minutes. Purpose: To give these boards and committees the needed support and staff expertise as well as insuring coordination of all planning activities. 6. Staff Participation. Members of the staff participate in the following committees and governmental organizations: Sanitary Commission Coastal Resources Advisory Committee Tri-County Council for Southern Maryland 303 and 208 River Basin Planning EPA Chesapeake Bay Program The staff coordinates with the Sanitary Commission to detbrmine whether new subdivisions shall be required to have community water or sewerage. The staff provides County representa- tion to Coastal Resources Advisory Committee, Tri-County.Council for Southern Maryland, and 303 and 208 River Basin Planning. The staff provided assistance to Commissioner Bernard Fowler in his capacity as a member of the Steering Committee of the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program. 7. Other Ongoing Projects - A-95 Review (Federal Projects) - General preparation of graphics - Assignment of house numbers throughout the County - Assistance in subdivision redesign, site analysis, and feasibility studies. B. Specially Funded Projects 1. Community Liviftg Areas Study. As in any locality, Calvert County is comprised of many different communities; including farm communities, water oriented towns, and residential (bedroom) communities. These communities have different needs, densities, household sites, etc., and should not unnecessarily be lumped together for planning purposes. This study (funded in part by a HUD grant) establishes Community PI'anning Districts (CPDs) as sub- areas of election districts and organizes all available information (households, vacant lots, trends, projections, etc.) by these CPDs. This study has been completed and will help to provide the necessary data base for ongoing planning activities, the proposed review of the Comprehensive Plan, and development of County Master Plans. Also, included in the study is a detailed analysis of a pilot CPD which will serve as a model for analyzing the remaining CPDs within the County.. 2. Historical Conservation Plan. This County was one of the first in the State to adopt an Historical District Ordinance (1974). Since then 25 of the County's sites have been officially recognized as districts. However, many feel that a more coordinated historic pl anning program for the 'entire County is needed to establish better guidelines for historical districting of sites or towns. Also, different methods for encouraging historic conservation should be considered, such as: (1) covenants, (2) scenic easements, (3) tax incentives, and (4) federal assistance programs. The purpose of- Historical Conservation Planning is to provide guidance and new ideas for historical conservation in the County. The Plan should be completed by February, 1980 (See Appendix for project out I ine) . 3. Ongoing Environmental Assessment. Often associated with rapid development of an area is deterioration of the environment. Factors contributing to environmental deterioration include erosion on developing sites, creation or expansion of roads and highways, leaking septic systems and dredging. Improper farm practices also can and often do lead to deterioration of the environment. The purpose of this study is to determine the impacts of land development and land use, so that proper measures can be taken to ,preserve the'environment. Results of the study should be available in 1980. (See Appendix for project outline.) C. Other Staff Projects In addition to answering inquiries by citizens (approximately 20% of the time), the staff also worked on the following projects in 1979. Project status is indicated in parentheses. 1. Identification of Bay access sites to be purchased with Coastal Zone funding. (Complete) 2. Herbicide utilization on B.G.& E. Right-of-Way. (Complete) 3. Comprehensive Plan outline and work program.. (Complete) 4. 1980 Budget Preparation for Planning Commission, Planning .Department, Historical District Commission, and Environmental Commission. (Complete) S. Review of 1980 Capital Improvement Program. (Complete) 6. County coordination of H.U.D. Rate Maps for flood insurance rates. (Underway) 7. County coordination of Flood Plain delineation with the Department of Water Resources, 111:2001-topo., mapping of flood plain and recommendation for zoning changes. (Underway) 8. Commuter Parking Location Study. (Underway) 9. Preparation of Scope of Work and outline for the Calvert County Administrative and Judicial Facilities Study. (Underway) 10. 1980 Water & Sewer Plan and 1980 Solid Waste Plan. Prepared by Colonel Lawrence Bowlby; reviewed by staff and Planning Commission. (Complete) 11. Realignment of Precinct Boundaries. Assistance to the Election Board in realignment and written description of precinct boundaries. (Complete) 12. Preparation of base data maps of existing land use and existing zoning. (Complete) 13. Supervision of student interns on two studies: (1) Sediment Control and Effects of Erosion on Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and (2) Sensitive Areas Inventory. (Complete) 14. Road name change ordinance revision. (Underway) 15. Revision of subdivision review procedures. (Underway) 16. Review of State Transportation Plan and Budget. (Complete) 17. Assistance to Permits and Inspections Office on revisions to the County Building Code and Sediment Control Ordi- nance. (Underway) 18.. Assistance to Tri-County Council for Southern Maryland in preparing materials for presentation and distribution for the preservation of the Patuxent River. (Underway) IV. FY 1980 BUDGETS 10 PLANNING COMMISSION BUDGET NOV 30 1979 BEGINNING BUDGET OUTSTANDING EXPENDITURES DESCRIPTION BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS ENCUMBRANCES TO DATE EXPENDED BALANCE OPERATING EXPENSES: CONTRACTED SERVICES 1 3,000.00 0.00 0.00 950.@O 31.6 2,049.50 CONFERENCE TRAVEL & REIMB. 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 230.00 23.0 770.00 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES: 4,000.00 0.00 0.00 1,180.50 29.5 2,819.50 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUDGET NOV 30, 1979 BEGINNING BUDGET OUTSTANDING EXPENDITURES DESCRIPTION BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS ENCUMBRANCES TO DATE EXPENDED BALANCE SALARIES 127,241.00 0.00 0.00 57,086.95 44.9 70,154.05 OPERATING EXPENSES: PRINTING & OFFICE SUPPLIES 2,SOO.00 0.00 381.77 2,513.89 115.8 (395.66) ADVERTISING 500.00 0.00 8.00 187.82 39.1 304.18 POSTAGE 1,500.00 0.00 0.00 483.97 32.2 1,016.03 TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH 700.00 0.00 0.00 254.24 36.3 / 445.76 CONTRACTED SERVICES1 29,500.00 28,800.00 13,086.00 18,111.57 53.S 27,102.43 MILEAGE ALLOWANCE 3,000.00 0.00 0.00 1,276.45 42.5 1,723.55 CONFERENCE TRAVEL & REIMB. 1,500.00 0.00 230.00 1,18S.66 94.3 84.34 SUBSCRIPTIONS & MEMBERSHIPS 600.00 0.00 61.00 461.84 87.1 77.16 EQUIPMENT REPAIR 200.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 200.00 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES: 40,000.00 28,800.00 13,766.77 24,475.44 55.5 30,557.79 CAPITAL OUTLAY: FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 400.00 0.00 434.00 0.00 108.5 (34.00) TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY: 400.00 0.00 434.00 0.00 108.5 34.00 TOTAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 167,641.00 28,800.00 14,200.77 81,562.39 48.7 100,677.84 This item includes costs for legal, accounting, engineering, consulting, investigative, and other similar professional services. V. LAND USE CHANGES SINCE THE ADOPTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN According to Article 66B of the Annotated Code of Maryland, the annual report is to "index and locate on a map all changes in development patterns and state whether these changes are or are not consistent with adopted plans of the jurisdiction." As this is the first annual report since the Comprehensive Plan of 1974, this section will generally cover land use changes since that Plan. Listed below are the Plan's land use objectives followed by a brief review of County efforts to achieve the objective and an evaluation of the results. Objective - 1: Develop policies, procedures, and regulations which will foster a planned "slow growth" alternative. County Efforts. In working toward a slow growth objective, it was felt that each year a certain number of parcels would be subdivided, regardless of the number of lots. Therefore, the average lot size in the Agricultural (A-1) zone was increased to five acres (originally, three acre minimum) to reduce the number of available lots. Effectiveness. Apparently, in the 1970's Calvert County has been increasingly thought of as a desirable place to relocate. To this extent, the number of lots created could have been up to 66% greater without the five acre minimum lot size. Also, numerous residential rezonings could have increased the growth rate beyond the current level. However, "slow growth" has certainly not been achieved. Between 1974 and 1980, the County's total number of dwelling units increased by 36%. Objective 2: Maintain a strong County-wide land use planning program to achieve a balance of land uses creating a high quality living and working environment. County Efforts. Included in the Comprehensive Plan was a general land use plan which described areas suited for development, direction and type of growth, and description of the five County planning (growth) areas. Since then the number of planning projects has expanded and numerous programs have been adopted. For example, a Road Ordinance was adopted; a Solid Waste Plan was developed; and the Water and Sewage Plan has been updated on an annual basis (See Section III for this year's projects). However, there has been no general physical plan developed to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Effectiveness. A balance of land uses has been provided for. However, development patterns have deviated from the land use plan. 12 Objective - 3: Coordinate the land use plan with the County Zoning Map and use the land use plan as a guide for zoning decisions. County Efforts. As mentioned under Objective - 2, the adopted land use plan establishes growth areas (growth nodes). These are always considered in the staff reports on rezoning cases. The exact delineation of the growth nodes is not specified which lends to rezoning requests. Effectiveness. Out of.3 residential rezoning requests in growth nodes, 3 were rezoned. Out of 9 commercial rezoning requests in growth nodes, 9 were rezoned. Out of 3 residential rezoning requests not in growth nodes, I was rezuiied. Out of 10 commercial rezoning requests not in growth nodes, 4 were rezoned. Objective - 4: Retain the natural amenities of the County, such as shorelines, forested areas, flood plains, stream valleys and wetlands in their natural state, consistent with good management practices. County Efforts. Since the Comprehensive Plan has been in effect, the following efforts have been made toward the retention of the natural amenities of the County: (1) Planning Staff was expanded to include an Environmental Planner (2) the Harbor Line Study was implemented in Solomons, (3) unsafe land in new subdivisions is now protected from residential development through the subdivision review process, (4) the Environmental Commission and Urban Forester now review preliminary subdivision plans, (5) County stream study and flood plain area study are now underway, and (6) the County has recommended County critical areas to be delineated by the state. Effectiveness. Many of these efforts are just underway, so it is difficult to gauge their effectiveness. However, since the 1974 Plan, other concerns have been raised, such as shoreline erosion, control of residential piers etc., which were not addressed in the Plan. Objective - 5: Preserve prime agricultural and open space lands from encroaching urban development by discouraging urban sprawl and strip commercial development. County Efforts. Prime Agricultural Land: Concern for preservation of prime agricultural land was first vocalized in the Comprehensive Planning Process of 1974. In 1976, a committee was formed to develop a program to preserve agricultural land and on March 27, 1979 final phases had been recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the County Commissioners to implement the program. The resulting innovative program established an alternative to the landowner, other than out- right sale of his entire farm. Instead, the landowner can sell his/her right to develop the land to another who wants to increase the develop- ment potential of his/her land. 13 Fi-@e hundred and twenty acres are now in the Agricultural Preservation Districts. Efforts are also now being made to utilize the State Agricultural Preservation Program. However, this and the County program are going to have to be very well utilized in order to effectively preserve prime agricultural land. Open Space: After 1974, a cluster development provision was added to the subdivision regulations to help preserve open space.. In brief, the cluster provision allows that the permitted lots within a subdivision may be clustered,on a portion of the land, with the rest in open space. Strip Commercial Development: Although the Planning Commission and County Commissioners generally discourage strip commercial develop- ment, there are no provisions (regulations, moratoriums, etc.) that prohibit such rezonings. Effectiveness. Despite the efforts mentioned above, Community Planning Districts (CPDs) not containing growth nodes have grown 34.1% since 1974, while CPDs containing growth nodes have grown only 25. 1% (See Appendix F) . Also the two fastest growing CPDs are not near designated growth nodes (CPD 5 - 77.9%, CPD 1 - 62.2%; see page 29) and are located in areas wher *e the Comprehensive Plan recommended agricultural preservation. Clearly, the objective has not been met. Objective - 6: New residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional developments be encouraged to locate in and around existing population centers and communities thereby creating development nodes. County Efforts. Currently all major growth nodes have very limited sewage capacity, if any. Many owners of residentially zoned land have not chosen to develop their property. The County Industrial Park was created to encourage new industry to locate in one area. Effectiveness. As stated under Objective - 5, the majoritylof residential development is not occurring in the designated growth nodes. Little industrial development has occurred, either inside or outside the industrial park. Objective - 7: Initiate and implement the development concept of "Villages" as the basis for granting residential and limited'commercial developments and the provisions of community centers. County Efforts. There are currently no provisions for the village concept. 14 Objective - 8: Phase the location and extent of development in accordance with existing or scheduled community facilities and services. County Efforts. Water and Sewer. The County periodically reviews the Water and Sewage Plan to keep it up to date with newly approved water and sewer systems approved by the Sanitary Commission. To insure that unhealthy situations are not created, the County does not permit building lots less than 40,000 sq. ft. to be created unless I public water or sewerage is installed or planned for within 2 years. Roads. To insure that proper roads are constructed, the County Commissioners adopted the Road Ordinance in 1976 and in recent years the County Commissioners have undertaken a continuous and extensive program to improve County roads. In addition, the Planning Commission may deny subdivision of aparcel unless the developer demonstrates the proposed volume and flow of traffic between the proposed subdivision and the nearest exi5ting County Collector or Arterial road will not create a hazard. Effectiveness. The 40,000 sq. ft. lot requirement was recently adopte4 and its effects can only be gauged over a long period of time. Roads for new developments have the capacity to carry increased traffic. Objective - 9: Provide for more efficient use of land and a high quality of site design through the use of flexible development controls, such as cluster development, historic district zones, critical area zones,, density transfers, and density zoning. County Efforts. Cluster Development. Also mentioned under Objective - S., this method is actively used to protect sensitive areas, agricultural land, and to reduce street-lengths. Historical District Zones. Twenty-five historical districts have been established. Within these districts, no exterior structural changes or permits for new construction can be issued without the Historical District Commission's approval. Unsafe Lands. The Planning Commission requires that unsafe land.be designated as unsuitable for residential development on final plats. lSee Section 16.01 A.2. of the Calvert County Zoning Ordinance- 2See Section 4.30 of the Calvert County Subdivision Regulations 15 Critical Areas Recommendations: These have been forwarded to the state for approval and designation. Density Transfer and Density Zoning. The Calvert County Agricultural Land Preservation Program, mentioned also under Objective - 5, provides for density transfer (Transferable Development Rights - TDRs) to density zones (Transfer Zone). Effectiveness. All aspects of this objective, except the designation of unsafe land and critical areas, are voluntary. Although not utilized too frequently, cluster development and historical districting have been beneficial when used. The Transferable Development Rights have not been used to date. Unsafe land designation has proved to be an effective method for proper site design and preservation of critical areas in new subdivisions. Objective - 10. Provide a transportation system designed to minimize congestion and conflict between resident and commercial traffic while providing the necessary transportation facilities for stable County growth. County Efforts. Since the 1974 Plan, the County Commissioners adopted the Road Ordinance to insure the necessary transportation facilities; the County Engineer instituted a Traffic Signing and Hazardous Location Program; a limited access policy has been adopted for the new dualized Routes 2 4 4 below Prince Frederick, and the Planning Commission has developed a policy of requiring cul-de-sacs for minor subdivisions where they are practical, so that the number of accesses onto a collector road is reduced. Effectiveness. The steps taken have improved present and future road conditions. Objective - 11. Institute and annually update both a ten year capital improvement program and a yearly capital budget. County Efforts. The yearly Capital Budget has been in effect for many years and has included capital improvements. The Capital Improvements Program (CIP) has been in effect for the past four years. Effectiveness: The CIP provides an opportunity for the PlanninR Commission to review projects and their relationship to the Comprehensive Plan as required by Article 66B. The CIP document has not been adopted by the County Commissioners. 17 VI. PROPOSED PLANNING PROJECTS The following is a synopsis of major projects proposed for 1980 and the immediate future. A. Review of Comprehensive Plan and Development of Master Plans. It is stated in the 1974 Comprehensive Plan that "The Comprehensive Plan should not be viewed as a one shot, long term document . . . Planning is a continuing process and this Plan should be updated as conditions and attitudes in the County change." Since the 1974 Plan, the County has experienced a population increase of 30%; making it the second fastest growing county in Maryland during that period. Such growth has depleted the supply of undeveloped commercially zoned land in parts of the County and has raised important questions concerning proper direction of growth. Two other reasons enforce the need to review the Comprehensive Plan. The first is that our changing world has introduced new concerns (e.g., energy) that were not addressed in the 1974 Plan. Secondly, as indicated in Section V, not all goals and objectives have been met. These goals and objectives should be re-evaluated and new strategies set if they are still applicable. After the Comprehensive Plan is reviewed, the County plans to create a physical plan (Master Plan) for each election district. The purpose of the Master Plans is to insure planning and implemen- tation of the Comprehensive Plan's goals and objectives. (See Appendix for outline and time frame for these projects.) B. Land Treatment Feasibility Study It has been common practice to discharge treated effluent directly into the closest stream. There is a major problem that exists with this type of operation: eutrophication. This is over- enrichment of water bodies by heavy concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorous which are characteristic of waste water. In addition, heavy concentrations of residual chlorine and other toxics which are discharged are harmful to aquatic organisms. Eight major waste water treatment plants located in Prince Georgels, Howard, and Montgomery Counties were discharging 24.49 million gallons per day (mgd) of effluent into the Patuxent River in 1975. This is programmed to rise to 73.36 mgd in 1990 and 94.38 mgd in 2000. This means that of the total fresh water input to the Patuxent, 76% will be waste water treatment plant effluent by the year 2000; up from a recent 43% in 1973. Currently we are 18 at about a 55% level. This is obvious@ly unacceptable if life in and around our estuaries is to continue as we now know it. Calvert County can set a good example by developing a method of disposing of present and projected sewerage effluents in a manner which will not pollute fresh water streams or adjacent estuaries. One option that should be explored is land application of sewerage effluents. This method has been used successfully in other areas (,e.g., Charles County) and indications are that it is cheaper and more environmentally acceptable than traditional sewerage disposal. It would seem desirable to have a study to determine the feasibility of land application of sewerage effluents in Calvert County. C. Special Town Plans - for Prince Frederick, Solomons, North Beach, etc. In Maryland, special studies have been initiated by citizens in as many as a dozen towns. The purpose of these studies has been to improve the economy and esthetics of the towns by taking an organized approach to town growth and/or renovation. Often reviewed in such special studies is signage, landscaping, coordination of daily business openings and closings, store front designs and new growth location. Such planning usually results in both esthetic and economic benefits and should be initiated in Calvert County as desired by the town residents. D. Community Piers Study. Based on their concern for the capacity of Calvert County's waterways to handle increased marine traffic, the County Commissioners declared a moratorium on the construction of community piers, beginning October 16, -1979. The matter has been referred to the Planning Department for study and recommendation during a twelve (12) month period. Although some background data have been gathered, the majority of the study will be conducted in 1980. E. Commercial Needs Study. Residential growth in the past decade has depleted the supply of undeveloped commercially zoned land in parts of the County. Therefore, a study is needed to recommend locations for comprehensive rezoning of land to commercial. It is hoped that this study can be conducted in concert with preparation of Master Plans for the County. 19 VII. INFORMATIONAL APPENDICES 20 APPENDIX A LOCATION OF SUBDIVISIONS CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN 1979 4- A-7 r -Z KK r V, JI 0 ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED IN 1976 0 ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED IN 1977 ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED IN 1978 ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED IN 1979 NOTE: Numbers correspond with reference number on Table Prepared by Planning Department - December, 1979 APPENDIX A SUBDIVISIONS CONSIDERED BY PLANNING COMMISSION IN 1979 Community Reference Size Number No. of Planning Recreation Date .Number Subdivision Name (Acres) of lots Zoning I ac. lots District Area (Acres) Rec'd Preliminary Approval Recorded 78-9 Fishing Creek Estates 91.1 26 R-1 4 F-I --- 6 3.40 3/21/78 Action deferred 3/15/79 at request of applicant 79-1 Chapel Hill Estates 137.9 26 A-1 1 11 3.70 1/12/79 3/15/79 79-2 Stone Farm, Section 2 83 19 A-I --- 5 .55 1/12/79 4/19/79 79-3 Owen Soper Estates 235 53 A-1 9 8 2.7 2/9/79 7/19/79 79-4 Friday Creek Estates 49.64 11 A-1 3 2 --- 3/6/79 9/20/79 Revised 6/21 79-5 Grapevine Cove Estates 83.5 17 A-1 --- is .7* 3/7/79 5/3/79 79-6 Joy Lee Acres 55.34 12 A-1 --- 8 .55 3/8/79 5/3/79 10/2/79 ABE 1/25 & ABE 1/26 79-7 Margaret Nelson 5.35 10 R-1 --- 17 --- 3/8/79 Application revised to create Revised 8/2 only one lot; preliminary approval 8/14/79 79-8 Folly Woods 20.68 7 A-1 3 11 --- 3/14/79 5/3/79 79-9 Grantham Hall 161.58 39 A-1 3 3 1.55 4/2/79 5/3/79 6/29/79 ABE 1/101 ABE 1/102 ABE 1/103& 8/13/79 ABE 1/109 79-10 Roy Beall Subdivision 16.603 4 A-1 --- 4 --- 4/2/79 5/3/79 7/13/79 ABE 1/104 Total Required SUBDIVISIONS CONSIDERED BY PLANNING COMMISSION IN 1979 Community Reference Size Number No. of Planning Recreation Date Jumber Subdivision Name (Acres) of lots Zoning I ac. lots District@ Area (Acres) Rec'd Preliminary Approval Recorded 79-11 Valley Lee 22.39 6 A-1 --- 11 --- 4/6/79 6/7/79 10/11/79 ABE 1/136 79-12 Terre Verda 11.055 6 A-1 3 4 --- 4/11/79 6/21/79 11/26/79 ABE-1/156 79-13 Resubdivision, Lot3 12.39 3 R-1 --- 17 --- 4/30/79 6/7/79 6/15/79 Park Chesapeake ABE 1/87 79-14 Mosley Acres 99.37 7 A-1 is --- 6/l/79 8/16/79 77-44 Buena Vista Woods 248.092 48 A-1 --- 9 --- 12/8/77 Revised 5/10/79 8/2/79 79-15 Morsell Subdivision 3.5.6 1 A,l 11 - 6/19/79 7/lS/79 8/2/79 ABE 1/107 & ABE 1/108 79-16 Carol Court 37.58 so R-1 --- 17 2.5 6/27/79 9/20/79 77-21 Summer City 84.871 64 R-1 6 1.7 7/14/77 Action suspended 9/21/77 per applicant's request; case reopened 9/17/78; revised plats 10/19/79, name changed to Brookeside. 79-17 Quince View Meadows, 78.90 18. A-1 3 4 --- 6/29/79 9/20/79 11/7/79 ABE 1/153 & Section 11 ABE 1/154 SUBDIVISIONS CONSIDERED BY PLANNING COMMISSION IN 1979 Community Reference Size Number No, of Planning Recreation Date -Number Subdivision Name (Acres) of lots Zoning 1 ac. lots District Area (Acres) Rec'd Preliminary Approval Recorded 79-18 Resubdivision, Lot 7 11.81 3 R-1 --- 17 --- 7/12/79 9/6/79 10/24/79 Park Chesapeake ABE 1/147 79-19 Sunderland Star 20.31 6 A-1 3 5 --- 7/13/79 9/20/79 79-20 Quince View Meadows, 25 5 A-1 --- 4 .02 7/17/79 Revised to 35 acres & Section 111 7 lots 10/3/79; Preliminary approval 11/15/79 79-21 Owings Proper 32.25 9 A-1 3 4 --- 8/1/79 10/18/79 79-22 Resubdivision, Section 1 36.508 25 R-1 --- 13 included in 8/13/79 10/18/79 Calvert Beach Estates JLB 3/3 79-23 Romar View '4.7 45 8 C-2 --- 17 --- 9/13/79 Action pending 76-22 Rolling Hill Farms 31.32 8 A-1 2 6 .05 6/24/76 Preliminary approval expired 6/24/79; application resub- mitted 10/15/79; Preliminary approval granted 12/6/79 79-24 Michael Court 7.867 13 R-1 --- is .0826 10/22/79 Action pending 79-25 Nostalgia 43.694 63 R-1 --- 14 6.3 11/9/79 Action pending 79-26 Section S-C 11.3 7 C-2 --- 17 2.3 11/14/79 Action pending Chesapeake Ranch Ests. APPENDIX B 24 LOCATION OF REZONINGS CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN 1979 #OVI-i x V, -r J PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL REZONING PROPOSED COMMERCIAL REZONING NUM: Letters correspond with letters an Table Prepared by Planning Department - December, 1979 APPE14DIX B ZONING CASES CONSIDERED BY PLANNING COMMTSSION-1979 Present Proposed Applicant Case CPD Acres- Zoning Zoning Summary of Action A. Chesapeake Ranch 78-694 17 9.0 C-2 C-3 Staff Report 5/15/78; denial recommended 8/17/78; Club, Inc. remanded to Planning Commission by County Commissioners after 11/14/78 public hearing; denial again recommended 4/19/79; rezoning denied by County Commissioners 10/2/79; Resolution #26-79. B. C&C Builders, Inc. 78-699 6 47,000 sq. ft. R-1 C-2 Staff Report 2/l/79; action suspended until Health Department concerns are addressed. C. Planning Commission 78-700-0 --- Ordinance Change Recommendation by Planning Commission 5/28/79 & 8/16/79; approved by the County Commissioners 10/9/79. D.Planning Commission 78-SR-2 --- Ordinance Change Recommendation by Planning Commission 5/28/79 & 8/16/79; approved by the County Commissioners 10/9/79. E. Paris Plaza 78-701 4 43.24 R-1 C-1 Staff Report 1/25/79 4 2/9/79; applicant requested deferral until further notice - 2/14/79. F. Chesatuxent 79-702 9 23 C-2 & R-2 C-2 Staff Report 3/12/79; approval recommended 3/15/79; approved by County Commissioners 6/26/79; Resolution #16-79. G. Chesapeake Heights on 77-691 10 261 A-1 R-1 Staff Report 3/18/78; approval recommended 12/6/79; the Bay no hearing date set. H. Burton Foote 79-703 is 1.0 A-1 C-2 Staff Report 6/18/79; denial recommended 7/19/79; no action to date by County Commissioners. J. Frank Cleary 79-705 2 1.63 A-1 C-1 Staff Report 6/20/79; denial recommended 7/19/79; case referred back to Planning Commission by County Commissioners 12/4/79. K. Fritz Grupp 79-706 16 8.0 A-1 C-2 Staff Report 8/18/79; denial recommended 12'/6/79; no action by County Commissioners. L. Golden Arch Realty 79-707 10 55,748 sq. ft. R-1 C-2 Staff Report 8/8/79; denial recommended 9/20/79; Corp. public hearing 12/4/79; no action by County Commissioners. M. G. L. Fleming 79-708 4 1.0 A-1 C-2 No action to date. N. Axley & Rogers 79-709 9 .94 R-1 C@2 Staff Report 7/13/79; denial recommended 12/6/79; no action by County Commissioners. 0. New Ce ntury Corp. 79-710 --- Ordinance change Section 17.10 G Staff Report 11/8/79; applicant requested deferral until 1/17/79. 26 APPENDIX C Comrnuniiy flanninq befricS lo @twA APPENDIX D 27 CALVERT COUNTY POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS BY COMMUNITY PLANNING DISTRICT (CPD) NUMBER OF POPULATION 1 NEW HOMES 2 ADDITIONAL TOTAL TOTAL CPD HOMES - 1970 IN 1970 BET. 1/70 - 1/80 POP: 1/70 - 1/803 HOMES POP. - 1/80 256 820 765 1,970 1,021 2,790 2 169 540 177 450 346 990 3 231 740 117 300 348 .1,040 4 362 1,160 286 740 648 1,900 5 300 960 567 1,460 867 2,420 6 306 980 212 540 518 1,520 18 893 2,860 159 430 1,062 3,290 M.C.D3 2,517 8,060 2,293 5,890 4,810 13,950 7 159 510 100 260 259 770 8 624 2,000 299 770 923 2,770 9 285 910 86 220 371 1,130 10 375 1,200 347 890 722 2,090 11 494 1,590 244 630 738 2,220 M.C.D2 1,937 6,210 1,076 2,770 3,013 8,980 12 465 1,040 154 400 619 1,440 13 668 1,490 363 930 1,031 2,420 14 192 430 60 150 252 580 is 346 770 172 440 518 1,210 16 31 70 8 20 39 90 17 1,166 2,600 695 1,790 1,861 4,390 M.C.Dl 2,868 6,400 1,452 3,730 4,320 10,130 7,322 20,670 4,821 12,390 12,143 33,060 1 1970 Census Data 2Based on building permit data. 3Additional population figured at 2.57 persons per new household. 2.57 is the ratio of the difference between 1977 and 1970 Census Department estimates and the number of new residential building permits issued during that period. Prepared by: GAB - January, 1980 APPENDIX E Residential Building Permits 1- January 1, 1970 - December 31, 1979 By Community Planning District (CPD) 1/70- 1/71- 1/72- 1/73- 1/74- 1/75- 1/76- 1/77- 1/78- 1/79- CPD 12/70 12/71 12/72 12/73 12/74 12/75 12/76 12/77 12/78 12/79 TOTAL 47 123 73 81 38 78 103 102 81 39 765 2 6 12 .15 30 22 21 30 23 8 10 177 3 6 7 12 12 7 11 9 18 is 20 117 4 9 2' 13 25 22 20 37 73 63 22 286 5 18 32 35 67 47 70 85 108 68 37 567 6 3 7 12 18 10 23 30 39 34 35 212 7 7 12 6 6 8 8 12 17 14 10 100 8 10 24 21 28 26 30 38 62 32 28 299 9 3 10 2 8 6 8 8 18 14 9 86 10 14 19 18 44 S 43 86 47 56 15 347 11 14 15 19 13 19 17 so 31 35 31 244 12 11 18 10 17 17 13 11 25 11 21 158 13 20 44 33 40 37 53 32 51 37 16 363 14 2 2 5 6 9 5 3 9 6 13 60 15 11 12 17 19 22 17 28 21 10 15 172 16 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 8 17 62 104 69 99 63 58 81 71 52 36 695 18 0 2 1 6 2 21 63 31 ..19 24 169 TOTAL 244 446 364 519 360 496 706 748 556 382 4,821 Information Source: Calvert County Department of Inspections Permits Prepared by: HWD,III, GAB January, 1980 JA APPENDIX F Total Dwelling Units/CPD/Year 1 January 1, 1970 January 1, 1980 % Increase Avg. Annual CPD 1/70 1/71 1/72 1/73 1/74 1/75 1/76 1/77 1/78 1/79 1/80 Since 1/70 Increase 3rd District 1 256 303 426 499 S80 618 '696 799 901 982 1021 299% 14.8% 2 169 175 187 202 232 254 275 305 328 336 346 105% 7.4% 3 231 237 244 256 268 27S 286 295 313 328 348 51% 4.2% 4 362 371 373 386 411 433 453 490 563 626 648 79% 6.0% 5 300 318 350 385 452 499 569 654 762 830 867 189% 11.2% 6 306 309 316 328 346 356 379 409 448 482 518 69% 5.4% 18 893 893 895 896 902 904 925 988 1019 1038 1062 19% 1.7% 2517 2606 2791 2952 3191 3339 3583 3940 4334 4622 4810 91% 6.7% 2nd District 7 1S9 166 178 184 190 198 206 218 235 249 259 63% 5.0% 8 624 634 658 679 707 733 763 801 863 895 923 48% 4.0% 9 285 288 298 300 308 314 322 330 348 362 371 30% 2.7% 10 375 389 408 426 470 475 518 604 651 707 722 92% 6.8% 11 494 508 523 542 555 574 591 641 672 707 738 49% 4.1% 1937 1985 2065 2131 2230 2294 2400 2594 2769 2920 3013 56% 4.5% Ist District 12 465 476 494 504 521 538 551 562 587 598 619 33% 2.9% 13 668 688 732 765 805 842 895 927 978 1015 1031 54% 4.4% 14 192 194 196 201 207 216 221 224 233 239 @252 31% 2.8% is 346 357 369 386 405 427 444 472 493 503 518 50% 4.1% 16 31 32 33 36 36 36 36 36 38 39 39 26% 2.3% 17 1166 1228 1332 1401 1500 1563 1621 1702 1773 1825 1861 60% 4.8% 2868 2975 3156 3293 3474 3622 3768 3923 4102 4219 4320 51% 4.2% County Wide 7322 7566 8012 8375 8995 9255 9751 104S7 1120S 11761 12143 66% 5.2% 1Information Source: 1976 Calvert County Housing Survey, published February Department of Inspections & Permits Prepared by: HWD, III, GAB - January, 1980 30 APPENDIX G COMPARATIVE POPULATION PROJECTIONSM RgM 1970. 1975 1980 1-9LS 1990 2000 Md. Dept-of Planning (1) 21.900 25,965 27,232 28,579 30.281 31,778 Md. Dept. of Planning (2) 21,900 26,319 34,500 39.197 41,598 45.089 Md. Dept. H & M H (3) ---- 26,940 32,800 ---- ---- ---- Tri-County Council, (4) 20..682 25,816 32.593 39,105 45.902 55.023 S. Md. Calvert County (5) 20,000 25.000 32.8-00 40,000 48.400 64,000 Planning Dept. U.S. Dept of Commerce (6) 20,682 27,600 ---- .... ---- ---- Bureau of Census (1) Md. Projection Series. 1975-90, Population & Employment, May 1977 Revisions 2) Ltr, Md. DSP, to County Commissioners, dated May 1. 1978 3) W Population Est.. Md. Center for Health Statistics, June, 1977 4) Tri-County Council Staff Paper No. 10, July 1977 M Projections prepared 10/31/77 (6) CIR P-26, No. 7620, Aug. 1977, Population as of July 1, 1977 (7) Table I COMAR 10.03.04 GRA PH Or, POPULATION PROJEMONS 76 0 72 6 64 60 (0 57 4q Z 0 40 0 36 04 37 28 24 20 1970 1975 1980 1930 2000 TREND GRGWTH CAL CO, PL VIPT M0 0M STATE PIANNINODSP) TRI-COUNTY CCUNCIL APPENDIX H UPA L V ERT COUNTY) QMD. 31 Agricultural Preservation Program "DESIGNATED AGRICULTURAL AREAS" Prime agricultural lands. E D3 EDT Zffift "AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICTS" Voluntary areas preserved for agri- cultural and forestry uses. (1) 2 "TRANSFER ZONES" Areas in which -X density of residential deireiopment may be increased by using "Transfer- able Development Rights" (2) X X X y ED 3 _CD i- N (1) Voluntary applications will be accepted after implementation OrFE ERP@ ED 2 EU-f- of the program in July, 1978. (2) Transfer Zones will be designated by the County Commissioners. N DESIGNATED AGRICULTURAL AREAS let-Election District 9,100 Ac. 2nd Election District 7,575 Ac. 3rd Election District 6,075 Ac. COUNTY 22,750 Ac. APPENDIX I 32 HISTORICAL CONSERVATION PLAN I. Private Options: A. Citizen Participation 1. Local,support a. voluntary associations' b. community historic preservation organizations 2. Public education program a. folklife and rural traditions, oral history project b. lecture forums c. historic resource center 3. Land use controls a. community covenants b. "future interest" agreements B. Private Recycling II. Public Options: 'A. Zoning 1. Demolition.by neglect controls 2. Community wide historic district zoning 3. "Floating zones" B. Taxation 1. Property tax credits a. preferential assessments b. present use assessments C. Transfer of.development rights D. Federal and State assistance E. Revolvink,funds F. Public recycling III. Amendments to Historic District Ordinance A. Community conservation B. Building restrictions 1. height controls 2. maintenance controls a. cleaning technology C. Clarification of historic value definitions 33 APPENDIX J ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS Scope of Work Purpose of Investigation This study is being initiated as a pilot study by Calvert County in response to increasing concerns of the effects land use may be having on valuable fresh and esturine waters surrounding Calvert County. The overall objective of this study is to identify water quality problems that may exist in three major watersheds which have resulted from adjacent land uses; and to identify potential land use practices which may have adverse effects on water quality. The final product shall be a report which discusses in detail all water quality parameters tested, the results of the tests performed and to what degree those parameters appear to be influenced by land uses in the surrounding drainage basin. Schedule of Work The field work for this study will be accomplished from August 1, 1979 to July 31, 1980, with a final report due September 31, 1980. An interim report due February 15, 1980 shall be required which will outline tasks accomplished to date and preliminary findings. Work to be Performed Sampling Interval: Monthly samples will be taken at each station for a one year (12 months) period. In addition, five (5) additional sets of samples (for all stream and parameters) may be taken during stress conditions. Sampling Locations: Three streams will be studied: St. Leonards Creek, Hall Creek and Parkers Creek. There will be five (5) sampling stations on St. Leonards Creek and four (4) sampling stations each on Halls Creek and Parkers Creek. This equates to thirteen (13) sampling stations on the three tributaries. Sampling station sites will be selected that are mutually agreeable to both parties. 34 Sampling Consistency: Sampling on the three tributaries will be consistant, in that all thirteen (13) stations-will be sampled on the same day and on,the same day each month. (Example: Sampling Days would be January 15th, February 15th, March 15th .....) Filre (5.) additional sets@of samples may be taken during stress periods. Reports: Two reports will be required, the interim and final, Three copies of the interim report shall be furnished by the time specified in the schedule of work. A final draft,report will be prepared by the contractor, which will contain descriptions of the purpose, objectives and background of the study, along with the methods employed, results and conclusion. The text should be accompanied with tables and figures appropriate for the presentation of results of each task. Pertinent explanation and discussion relative to the procedures involved in each task should also be provided to support methods and conclusions. The contractor shall furnish three (3) copies of the final draft report to Calvert County for review and approval of formats, method of presentation, and compliance with applicable contract require- ments. Thirty days should be allowed for review by Calvert County. Final technical reports shall be provided to Calvert County in eight (8) copies and the Coastal Zone Unit in two (2) copies with one original on good quality bond paper, 8 1/2." x 11", with a 2" binding margin on the left side. Tables of contents will be required along with a preface, executive summary, abstract, acknowledgements, references, glossary and a list of tables and figures. Mapping done as part of the evaluation procedure need not be reduced and bound with the report, but can be provided separately at full size. 35 APPENDIX K Draft Outline of Citizen Participation PKogram For Review of the Calvert County Comprehensive Plan & Development of County Master Plans-z DATES. I. Organization of Citizen Participation and Generation of Public Interest. A. Presentation of Citizen Participation techniques to Planning Commission. B. Inform County Commissioners of Citizen Participation techniques. C. Develop "shopping list" of problems and determine accomplishments of Comprehensive Plan - i.e. which goals and objectives have been met and which have not been met (prepared by Planning Department). D. Generation of Public Interest 1/3/80 1) Bulk rate mailing to all county households (including questionaries). 11/28/79 1/25/80 2) Presentations to key civic organizations of intentions to conduct public meetings and evaluate Comprehensive Plan. 11/21/79 3) Provide media information (to be continued throughout revision of Comprehensive Plan and development of Master Plans). - approximately 8 to 10 weeks - 1/26/80 11. Review of Comprehensive Plan A. Conduct Public Mass Meetings (Calvert Senior High SchoG1 (9 AM 4 PM) 1) Presentation by Planning Department staff of key issues and problems. 2) Conduct "Nominal Group Workshops" - to surface problems and concerns, and relate them to our current goals and objectives - i.e. perhaps we may need to eliminate some or add others. approximately 2 to 3 weeks - 3/20/80 B. Present results of mass meetings, including revision of goals and objectives (if any), to Planning Commission (prepared by Planning Department), 4/14/80 C. Present draft of Comprehensive Plan to County Commissioners. - approximately 4 to,6 weeks - 36 DATES III. Development of Master Plans (by election districts) 4/80 4/81 A. Citizen Participation in Preliminary Master Plans 1) Coordination with County Commissioner's Citizen Advisory Committee. 2) Coordination with an Advisory Committee of "Liasons.11 3) Conduct forum meetings - to keep general public inform&d.- 5/81 B. Present Preliminary MasterPlansto Planning Commission (Public Hearing). C. Present Preliminary MasterPlansto County Commissioners (Public Hearing). 37 APPENDIX L PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF DUTIES Staff Support Mr. Frank A. Jaklitsch, Director of Planning - directs County planning activities including the formulation and administration of comprehensive plans. This is a high level professional planning and administrative position requiring a comprehensive knowledge of the physical, social and economic implications of local planning activities, and the ability to integrate diverse planning projects with the overall objectives of the County. The Planning Director serves as the Administrator and Secretary of the County Planning Commission as well as the Director of the Planning Department. The work is performed under the policy direction of the Administrative Director. Mr. William R. Pittman, Jr., Associate Planner - performs professional level planning duties within a wide range of assignments relating to subdivision of land and physical development of the County, administration of regulations and review and preparation of regulations and ordinances; does related work as required. Difficult County planning activities are performed, involving knowledge of the principles and practices of planning and an understanding of the physical, social and economic concepts underlying planning. The Associate Planner interprets and administers land use regulations and prepares the necessary information to keep the plans, regulations and policies of the County and the Planning Department current and reflective of the long range development goals of the County. He also identifies existing and potential problems associated with growth and development. The work is performed under the general supervision of and in accordance with procedures and policies laid down by the Planning Director. Supervision is exercised over subordinate planners and drafting personnel. Mr. Gregory A. Bowen, Assistant Planner - performs professional field and office investigative work pertaining to planning problems. Performs substantive planning work involving knowledge of the principles and practice of the physical, social and economic concepts underlying planning. Employees in this class receive general supervision and perform duties in accordance with procedures and policies established by the Planning Director. Mr. Vivian C. Marsh, Environmental Planner - performs professional field and office investigative work pertaining to environmental planning problems. Does related work as required. Performs substantive planning work involving knowledge of the principles and practices of environment, 38 resources and land planning. Employees in this class receive general supervision and perform duties in accordance with procedures and policies established by the Planning Director. Mr. H. Wilson Dowell, III, Project Planner - this is rosponsible professional work in rural planning. Prepares and implements planning studies designed to promote the orderly growth and development of the County as a whole and of the various sub-areas and communities contained within its boundaries. Work involves the identification and analysis of problems; the development of goals and objectives; the design of programs and alternatives thereto to meet the objectives and the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of programs. Work is performed with considerable latitude for independent judgment and action within the scope of office programs and policies. General direction is received in performing projects, and work is reviewed through conferences, reports, and observations of results. E. Linwood Beverly, The Draftsman - is responsible for sub-professional work in the Planning Office. The employee in this class is expected to prepare plats, plans and other drawings as well as maps. Drawings must be neat and accurate and are checked both in process and upon completion for adherence to instructions. Maureen E. Crout, Secretary III - performs difficult stenographic and clerical tasks requiring responsible clerical decisions in accordance with established policies. Considerable judgment and independent action in establishing or adapting work procedures to new situations is also involv*ed. The employee in this class frequently acts as an intermediary for a superior and is delegated responsibility for handling minor ad- ministrative details. Public contact is frequently a major function of the position. Work is normally reviewed only for results obtained. A Secretary III may exercise supervision over the work of secretarial or clerical assistants. Barbara A. Smith, Clerk Typist I - engages in repetitive clerical work. Detailed instructions are given for new or difficult assignments and work is.ieviewed in process or upon completion for accuracy. As the employee becomes familiar with particular procedures, she then works with more independence. Since this is the beginning class in the typist series, alertness and a willingness to learn and prepare for assignments of progressively increasing difficulty are essential. The Clerk Typist I does not exercise direct supervision. The employee in this position performs tasks for both the Planning Department and the County Engineer. 39 APPENDIX M Materials available from the Calvert County Planning Department Water & Sewerage Plan $5.00 Solid Waste Plan 5.00 Comprehensive Plan 3.00 Housing Survey 2.50 County Street Map 1.75 Official Zoning Maps 1.50 sheet $50.00 set Soils Maps 1.50 sheet $50.00 set Aerial Photo Maps 1.50 sheet $50.00 set Miscellaneous County Maps 1.50 Overall Zoning Map Land Use Map Water Plan Map Sewerage Plan Map General Plan Map Public Facilities Map Historic Sites Map Designated Agricultural Sites Map etc. Copy of recorded subdivision plats 1.50 Complimentary materials available from the Calvert County Planning Department Population projections and information Yearly building permit information Agricultural Preservation Program information Tourism Brochure CM LMN"Y ififfimillill 3 6668 14110272 5