Charles County Rezoning

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • camobob

    Active Member
    Feb 18, 2013
    482
    Anybody make it to the meeting yesterday? I wanted to but got hung up.
     

    Long1MD

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 12, 2013
    1,113
    Too far gone
    This is what I see. The older folks in the county that hedge against the market or invested in vacant land get screwed because they can only build a home on 20 acres. However, those lands already subdivided can be built upon. The conservation is designed to keep another 17,000 homes from being built. On the flipside of this is that if we vote "NO" we screw ourselves with mega traffic and overcrowded everything. The only good thing that would come from voting "NO" would be we would have more people paying into the tax base.The bad part about voting yes would be that even though our property values go up, so will our taxes. Neither plan seems to attract business which means the homeowners will be taxed to death for any shortfall. In short, neither plan is very fare to everyone. Their were calls for more studies. I own a single family home in a nice neighborhood and will be voting yes because it will raise my property value.
     

    camobob

    Active Member
    Feb 18, 2013
    482
    Good synopsis!
    As one of the 'older' folks who invested in vacant land I'm kind of curious about some of the new restrictions like impervious area and no shooting ranges. Wondering if anyone else has looked at the specifics.
     

    traveller

    The one with two L
    Nov 26, 2010
    18,263
    variable
    Most of this land is already 1 in 10 in the deferred development rural conservation district. So it's not like this turns much land from high density development to conservation.

    I spoke to one of the local RE attorneys this week. The way the reg is written right now, there is NO protection for already subdivided land when it comes to the impervious area restrictions. So there may be folks who bought perc'd 3 and 10 acre lots as buildable land and are holding on for the day that they are ready to build who will get screwed out of their investment.

    God I loathe the assholes who are currently on the county commission.
     

    camobob

    Active Member
    Feb 18, 2013
    482
    That would include me Traveller. Starting to think I may need to talk to an attorney myself - who did you contact?
     

    44man

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 19, 2013
    10,129
    southern md
    so if it passes at our farm (265 acres not all buildable ) if we wanted to have the kids and grandkids build and live there we have to give them 20 acre lots? that's what I got out of it. and the value of our land drops drastically. and if I understand it our taxes get to go up because we already have houses there. what a fvcking joke. Maryland sucks and Charles county sucks even harder than the rest now.
     

    camobob

    Active Member
    Feb 18, 2013
    482
    If I read this right 44, it's worse than that. Along with the 20 acre minimum comes a list of new restrictions. One is the 8% max impervious ground limit but there are others. Steve Ball told me that everything except the 8% was already in the regs. I looked - didn't see any of it. I had an open mind on this whole thing at the beginning but the more I look, the more it seems like they continue to rape half the county while we pay the price. I heard on the radio that there is another meeting in Laplata tomorrow at 6:00pm.
     

    camobob

    Active Member
    Feb 18, 2013
    482
    Just got off the phone with the county. Monday's meeting is being continued tomorrow (Wed) at 6:00pm in the LaPlata government building.
     

    robmints

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 20, 2011
    5,092
    Down zoning is a difficult pill sometimes, but it beats the heck out of the alternative.

    IMO, Farms are farms. They have been paying tax forever and a day as a farm. If you want to develop it, for kids or whoever, you should pay the back taxes on the property as if it was a buildable subdivision all along. That's not going to happen, no one could afford it. That's why farmers haven't been paying that tax rate all along. Building for family sounds nice, but it is impossible, once the house is built anyone can buy or sell it.

    People expecting a grandfathering of zoning have a good point, but. So many people built before them there can only be so much growth. Sooner or later you need to sh*t or get off the pot or you will miss out on the opportunity. Might not be fair, but there is only so much land, roads, schools, water, sewage capacity, etc for a given area.

    Harford county used to be nice, with over-development much of it is a cesspool of crime and drugs. Be careful with what you wish for and support.
     

    traveller

    The one with two L
    Nov 26, 2010
    18,263
    variable
    The continuation of the hearing is Thursday at 6.

    That's at least what the lady at the admin building front desk told me. I can't see the hearing noticed on the county website.
     

    traveller

    The one with two L
    Nov 26, 2010
    18,263
    variable
    IMO, Farms are farms. They have been paying tax forever and a day as a farm. If you want to develop it, for kids or whoever, you should pay the back taxes on the property as if it was a buildable subdivision all along. That's not going to happen, no one could afford it. That's why farmers haven't been paying that tax rate all along. Building for family sounds nice, but it is impossible, once the house is built anyone can buy or sell it.

    What justification would you see for that kind of retroactive taxing ? If the property is used for Ag or forestry, it should be taxed as such. If it converts to residential, it should be taxed as residential from that point forward. The public has no right to have farms to look at. If the public wants a farm to remain a farm, they can buy it or buy a conservation easement. Chuck Co did that with Friendship landing farm and others and I am fine with that, but to go to a private landowner and take away his ability to make money of his investment or inheritance is communist shit that people came to this country to get away from.

    People expecting a grandfathering of zoning have a good point, but. So many people built before them there can only be so much growth. Sooner or later you need to sh*t or get off the pot or you will miss out on the opportunity. Might not be fair, but there is only so much land, roads, schools, water, sewage capacity, etc for a given area.

    The proposed rezoning will not reduce the amount of development in the county. It uses the smokescreen of 'water quality' to increase the density of development in Waldorf to te detriment of the landowners who happen to own undeveloped land in the Mattawoman watershed.

    Harford county used to be nice, with over-development much of it is a cesspool of crime and drugs. Be careful with what you wish for and support.

    Chuck is already a cesspool of crime and drugs. There are entire states with less homicides than Chuck Co. And the sadest thing about that is the fact that it is still one of the nicer counties in Maryland.
     

    robmints

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 20, 2011
    5,092
    What justification would you see for that kind of retroactive taxing ? If the property is used for Ag or forestry, it should be taxed as such. If it converts to residential, it should be taxed as residential from that point forward. The public has no right to have farms to look at. If the public wants a farm to remain a farm, they can buy it or buy a conservation easement. Chuck Co did that with Friendship landing farm and others and I am fine with that, but to go to a private landowner and take away his ability to make money of his investment or inheritance is communist shit that people came to this country to get away from.

    Nope. Not retroactive. "it converts" What does that mean? It is a multi-million dollar gift to the property owner is what it means.

    The proposed rezoning will not reduce the amount of development in the county. It uses the smokescreen of 'water quality' to increase the density of development in Waldorf to te detriment of the landowners who happen to own undeveloped land in the Mattawoman watershed.

    I know, been there, done that.


    Chuck is already a cesspool of crime and drugs. There are entire states with less homicides than Chuck Co. And the sadest thing about that is the fact that it is still one of the nicer counties in Maryland.

    Because it is nice. Want to see bad? Upzone and develop.

    I don't know all the particulars about your situation. Just trying to help by pointing out to be careful about what you think you want for the future of your area. If you are just interested in cashing out, that is a different story.
     

    traveller

    The one with two L
    Nov 26, 2010
    18,263
    variable
    Nope. Not retroactive. "it converts" What does that mean? It is a multi-million dollar gift to the property owner is what it means.

    Why is it a 'gift' if one purchases developable land ? If a property is subdividable and has the required road and utility access, the price reflects that development potential. If a property has no development potential (no road access, failed perc, perpetual conservation easement etc.), that is reflected in a lower price. What the county is doing here is to turn land that is currently developable at a 1 house per 10 acre density into almost undevelopable land without compensating the landowners. Under the new rules, the density is down to 1 house in 20 acres or less (depending on the arbitrary imperviable surface rules).

    If there was a county ordinance to nuke most of Waldorf, I would be all for it.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,927
    Messages
    7,259,375
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom