LA PLATA, Md. – The Charles County Board of County Commissioners held a Public Comment Session for residents to provide comments to commissioners both virtually and in person on June 25, 2024.
A community representative and several interested parties of the Woodland Point and Potomac View Communities provided testimonies and requested clarity on Swan Point Docket 250 Amendment #3.
Interested parties are any communities or residents that share common road ways for
ingress/egress, common floodplains, common aquifer resources, common sewer resources, and all common essential services, according to Janis “John” Bilmanis, the community representative of the Woodland Point and Potomac View Communities.
Bilmanis submitted a Unanimous Community Petition and potential line-in/line-out changes concerning the Swan Point Docket 250 Amendment #3.
Amendment 3 adds a “tourism element” and increases the requirements on common resources during peak periods. However, it relies on outdated aquifer studies before 2007 and floodplain information from 2015, according to Bilmanis.
Peak periods include evacuations with safe ingress/egress impacts, flood, and stormwater management impacts, water and sewer resources short-term and long-term, etc.
“Residents don’t know the County Codes & Ordinances well enough to understand the elements in phasing requests or earlier studies,” Bilmanis said.
Bilmanis requested that the Commissioners educate the residents with full transparency and clarity for all phases by adding an appendix or supporting document that clearly and succinctly describes the policies, procedures, authorities, and notifications of interested parties when implementing future phases.
A summary of major elements of Docket 250, Amendment 1 to 3 should be added as a reference for added clarity. This appendix or supporting document should state the following:
- How all interested parties are properly notified of a new phase, and notified of the study results
- How all interested parties can engage the County with transparency as to technical rationale, critical evidence used, and the resulting analyses
- How all issues noted are properly assessed with the conditions at the time of a phasing plan definition
- Who are all the pertinent decision authorities (Federal, State, County)
- Where and when will there be any budget shortfalls addressed
This appendix or supporting document should enable a “unified understanding” of all the elements being assessed and approved for each phasing plan request. Residents are seeking a “Due No Harm” approach without restricting smart growth.
“The Community’s concerns are not about stopping growth but about achieving growth without harm. Docket 250 and Charles County need to build smartly and ‘Make Whole’ any losses incurred. Proper planning, budgeting, and engineering can help achieve that goal,” Bilmanis said.
Karen Huffman, a resident in the community, testified smart growth is about building the required infrastructure before, not after, any new development creates harm to the communities.
“Docket 250 needs to be consistent with any Master Plan, clear about the growth, and have a supported infrastructure budget before moving forward,” Huffman said.
More public comments from the June 25 session can be found here. The next Public Comment Session will be on July 9. Find the full meeting by clicking here.
Contact our news desk at news@thebaynet.com
