Report to the General Assembly on Implementation of Senate Bill 236, the Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act of 2012 Maryland Department of Planning February 2013
Table of Contents Introduction... 1 MDP and MDE Technical Assistance... 4 Status of Tier Maps... 5 MDP Review of Adopted Tier Maps... 6 Status of Counties without Adopted Tier Maps...13 Changes to Local Ordinances, Regulations and Plans...14 Tier IV Exemptions...20 Capacity Available for Sewered and Septic Development...20 Conclusion...22 Appendix A. Meetings and Presentations with Local Governments and Stakeholders...23 Appendix B. Municipal Tier Adoption Status (as of February 1, 2013)...28 Appendix C. Definitions of minor and major subdivisions that apply to SB236 implementation...33 Appendix D. Excerpts from MDP Pre-Adoption Letters to Counties...40
Progress Report to the Maryland General Assembly on Implementation of Senate Bill 236, the Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act of 2012 February 1, 2013 Introduction Senate Bill 236 (SB236 or the Act ), the Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act of 2012 was passed by the General Assembly on April 9, 2012 and signed by Governor O Malley on May 2, 2012 1. The purpose of the legislation is to decrease future nutrient pollution to the Chesapeake Bay and other water resources and to reduce the amount of forest and agricultural land developed by large lot developments. It does this by limiting major residential subdivisions served by onsite septic systems. This status report is required by the legislation. The law provides counties and municipalities the option to adopt a growth tier map that identifies where residential major and minor subdivisions may be located in their jurisdiction and what type of sewerage system will serve them. Without an adopted tier map, a local jurisdiction may not authorize a major residential subdivision served by on-site septic systems, community systems or shared systems. The four tiers described in the Act are as follows: Tier I areas are currently served by sewerage systems. Tier II areas are planned to be served by sewerage systems. Tier III areas are not planned to be served by sewerage systems. These are areas where growth on septic systems can occur. Tier IV areas are planned for preservation and conservation and prohibit residential major subdivisions 2. The Act addresses the disproportionate land consumption and pollution impacts from development on septic systems. MDP forecasts that Maryland s population will grow by more than 1 million people (about 500,000 households) between now and 2040. By ensuring that the land consumption and pollution impacts from those 1 Information in this report is up-to-date as of February 1, 2013; as additional tier maps are adopted or revised, these updates will be posted on MDP s website at: http://planning.maryland.gov/ourwork/sb236implementation.shtml 2 Several changes under the Act went into effect on January 1, 2013, including the requirement for local planning boards to hold a public hearing, conduct an environmental and cost-of-services review, and recommend for approval major residential subdivisions within Tier III; and restrictions on further subdivision and resubdivision of residential minor subdivisions within Tier IV. The requirement for a controlling authority for new community sewerage systems and shared facilities went into effect on July 1, 2012. 1
future households are minimized (by preventing sprawl), SB236 gives Maryland the best chance to restore its streams, rivers and estuaries, and a greater opportunity to sustain its agricultural heritage and forest land. In addition, SB236 provides greater transparency by requiring local governments to more accurately assess, plan for, and report publicly the costs associated with large-lot development on septic systems. As noted by Governor O Malley in his testimony on SB236 during the 2012 legislative session: Among the big four causes of pollution in the Bay, septic pollution is the one area where so far we have totally failed where the graph is going pretty dramatically in the wrong direction. It s the fastest growing cause of nitrogen pollution in our Bay, and it s only getting worse. In fact, all our progress to date in reducing nitrogen pollution by retrofitting existing septic systems progress we ve invested $40 million in since 2008 has been completely negated by the installation of new septic systems. On the Lower Western Shore, septic pollution now accounts for 33% of the damaging flow of nitrogen into the Bay. What s happening to the health of the waters here is a glimpse of Christmas future, unless we change the manner in which we grow. Septic systems have a disproportionate impact on our water quality; a house on a septic system causes six to ten times the pollution to the Bay as a house on public sewer. If we don t act, new septic systems are projected to account for three-fourths of the increase in nitrogen pollution over 25 years. New development on septic systems is threatening our family farms and forest land. Septic development consumes eight times the amount of land per new household on average than development within sewered areas. Septic developments are undermining our efforts to grow smarter efforts that could ultimately save us more than a billion dollars in infrastructure costs over the next 20 years as we grow in population by a million people. This bill will prevent 50,000 new septic systems and stop as much as 1.1 million pounds of nitrogen pollution 3 from being pumped into surface water by 2035. 3 This represents the urban stormwater and septic tank nitrogen loads to surface waters from 50,000 households served by septic tanks 2
This measure will better protect the agricultural lands upon which family farming depends. What s more, it will produce considerable savings in terms of fewer remediation costs and infrastructure costs to support new septic housing developments. New regulations from the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) require Best Available Technology (BAT) for most new septic tanks and are an important addition to SB236. While SB236 will reduce the number of future households in Maryland that would otherwise use septic tanks, the BAT regulations reduce the pollution of those future households in Maryland that ultimately do build on septic tanks. The BAT regulations complement Enhanced Nutrient Removal (ENR) technology for Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs), in which Maryland has invested considerable dollars. Even with BAT, new septic tank development will continue to have a disproportionate impact on Maryland s water resources and agricultural and forested landscape compared to sewered development. This is important given the nutrient load limits of the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL): if the State spends our nutrient "allotment" on residential septic sprawl, less will be left for economic development priorities. The Act is not expected to reduce agricultural land values. Sales data of agricultural land in counties with more restrictive agricultural zoning (Baltimore, Kent, and Worcester) compared to counties with more permissive agricultural zoning (Harford, Queen Anne s, and Wicomico) demonstrate that restrictions on septic development do not necessarily lower agricultural land values (see Figure 1). Figure 1. Average per Acre Cost, Agricultural Properties ( properties at least 20 acres from 2002-2009, based on land value cost) 3
MDP and MDE Technical Assistance Within several weeks of the passage of SB236, MDP developed a guidance document (Implementation Guidance for SB236) and convened a Planning Directors Roundtable (both on May 24, 2012) to brief planning directors and other interested stakeholders on SB236. Since then, MDP has attended more than 125 meetings with local governments and stakeholders (see Appendix A) and has kept in close contact with local planning staff to review draft tier maps (including informal map-based comments and pre-adoption letters) and to respond to numerous policy interpretation questions related to SB236. MDP staff provided significant technical assistance to counties and municipalities as they prepared their draft tier maps. This included data sharing and updates (e.g., MDP and locals updated and corrected key data items such as zoning, sewer, and municipal boundaries), preliminary identification of issue areas with early draft maps, presentation of Issue Maps by MDP staff, collaboration to improve maps with many jurisdictions, and daily interaction with local governments since June 2012. To facilitate municipal tier map adoption, MDP developed a draft municipal resolution used by many jurisdictions and when requested provided hands-on technical assistance with draft map development. In August 2012, MDP posted an online mapping application and additional guidance material on the MDP website to facilitate local tier mapping. The MDP SB236 webpage is online at: http://planning.maryland.gov/ourwork/sb236implementation.shtml MDP provided informal map-based comments on all 56 draft tier maps (20 counties, 36 municipalities) shared with MDP (including multiple versions per jurisdiction). MDP s goal for each jurisdiction assisted was to reach a point where no formal comments would be needed on an adopted tier map. MDP sought to achieve this goal by providing significant feedback on draft tier maps and by obtaining a good understanding of local decisions behind draft tier maps. As counties neared a decision to consider a particular tier map for adoption, MDP transmitted its informal comments through pre-adoption letters to the local planning director (to 15 counties). Appendix D includes excerpts from each pre-adoption letter sent to counties. Overall, better tier maps resulted from MDP s technical assistance effort. Of the 12 counties that have adopted tier maps, several recognized that their approach needed adjustment based on MDP s informal comments (Baltimore, Garrett, Montgomery, and Somerset). Of the three adopted county tier maps that MDP has formally commented on (Cecil, Allegany, and Frederick), Cecil and Allegany did not choose to adjust their map based on MDP s informal comments. 4
Frederick adopted a tier map option that was not shared with MDP for informal review (MDP had commented on an earlier version of the Frederick tier map that largely met the statutory mapping criteria). Because of its extensive assistance to both counties and municipalities, MDP was able to identify and facilitate resolution of potential conflicts in tier designations between counties and municipalities before the adoption of tier maps. This resulted in successful resolution of such conflicts in Garrett and Harford. However, not all conflicts could be avoided. Cecil and Frederick adopted tier maps that did not map all municipal growth areas as Tier II; however, to date the municipalities within those counties that have adopted tier maps (Elkton in Cecil ; Myersville and Middletown in Frederick ) concur with how their municipal growth areas were mapped. Montgomery s adopted tier map designates a portion of the Rockville municipal growth area differently than the city but the county and city have reached agreement that the county will resolve this conflict to match the city s designations during the county s next Tier map amendment or subdivision regulation amendment. Talbot adopted a tier map that includes designations that conflict with the St. Michaels adopted tier map for small portions of the St. Michaels municipal growth area. MDP is currently seeking resolution of this issue as required by the Act. As the end of 2012 approached, MDP sent a reminder to all local planning directors of the restrictions on major septic subdivisions and definitions of minor subdivisions that would go in effect on December 31, 2012, the technical assistance available from MDP to assist with review of draft tier maps, and a status report of jurisdictions that had adopted a tier map or changed their subdivision definitions. MDE has responded to questions related to grandfathering of subdivisions and the role of local MDE approving authorities, who will help ensure that all future residential subdivisions meet the provisions of the law. Status of Tier Maps The following map (Figure 2) illustrates which counties have adopted a tier map as of February 1, 2013, and the status of MDP s comments on each county s adopted tier map. Of the 24 counties, twelve (11 counties and Baltimore City) adopted a tier map, while twelve took no action by the end of 2012. Without an adopted tier map, a local jurisdiction may not authorize a residential major subdivision served by onsite septic systems, community systems or shared systems. As of February 1, 2013, 61 of the 110 municipalities with planning and zoning authority have adopted a tier map. Appendix B provides a complete list of the tier map adoption status for each of these municipalities. As most municipalities are 5
served by existing sewerage systems, not adopting a map has less of an impact on municipal growth; however, conflicting tier designations within municipal growth areas between county and municipal tier maps can occur. SB236 encourages resolution of such conflicts and establishes a process for finalizing the tier designation if the conflict cannot be resolved. The sooner that municipal tier maps are adopted, the sooner that any potential tier designation conflicts with counties can be resolved. and municipal adopted tier maps formally submitted to MDP, along with MDP s formal reply letters, can be accessed through MDP s website at: http://planning.maryland.gov/ourwork/sb236implementation.shtml Figure 2. Status of Tier Maps (as of February 1, 2013) MDP Review of Adopted Tier Maps The Land Use Article (LU), 1-508, provides mandatory criteria for tier maps, stating that [t]he growth tiers adopted by a local jurisdiction shall meet the criteria. (emphasis added). Most of the tier maps met the criteria, but two county tier maps (Cecil, Frederick ) clearly violated provisions in the statute, especially for Tier IV, while one county tier map (Allegany ) had less significant issues but still required MDP comment. As part of its statutory responsibilities stemming from the Act (LU 1-505), MDP may comment on the growth tiers adopted by local jurisdictions. The comments, if 6
any, reflect areas of the tier map where MDP believes the requirements of the law have not been met. If MDP comments on a tier or an area within a tier, the local legislative body or planning board must hold at least one public hearing on MDP s comments and review the mapped growth tiers adopted by the jurisdiction in light of the comments. Jurisdictions are not required to change their tier map in response to MDP s comments. For the other nine adopted county tier maps reviewed by MDP, MDP did not have comments on eight of the maps (although MDP did highlight minor issues with the Harford, Prince George s and Talbot adopted tier maps) and one tier map (Somerset ) is still under review. MDP has reviewed 23 of the 61 adopted municipal tier maps (as of February 1, 2013). MDP did not have any comments on the reviewed municipal tier maps (although MDP did remind several municipalities of MDP s previous comprehensive plan comments related to the supply of municipal growth areas in comparison to future growth demand for such areas; this has relevance for the mapping of Tier II areas). Table 1 summarizes MDP comments on county adopted tier maps (as of February 1, 2013). TIER IV MAPPING CRITERIA The Land Use Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, 1-508(a)(4) provides: (4) Tier IV areas are areas that are not planned for sewerage service and are: (i) areas planned or zoned by a local jurisdiction for land, agricultural, or resource protection, preservation, or conservation; ii) areas dominated by agricultural lands, forest lands, or other natural areas; or (iii) rural legacy areas, priority preservation areas, or areas subject to covenants, restrictions, conditions, or conservation easements for the benefit of, or held by a State agency, as defined in 9 206 of the Environment Article, or a local jurisdiction for the purpose of conserving natural resources or agricultural land. Table 1. MDP formal comments on county adopted tier maps Allegany Excerpt from MDP Formal Reply Letter the Maryland Department of Environment denied approval of the Terrapin Run area as a planned sewered area within the 2007 Update to the 2002 Allegany Water and Sewerage Plan and within the 2011 Allegany Water and Sewerage Plan As a result of this denial, the Terrapin Run area is not planned for sewerage service. The Terrapin Run area does not meet the requirements of a Tier II area under LU 1-508(a)(2)(i) and (ii). Since the Terrapin Run area is not planned for sewerage service it 7
Excerpt from MDP Formal Reply Letter can only be considered as a Tier III or Tier IV area. Tier III areas are areas not dominated by agricultural or forest land ( LU 1-508(a)(3)). Because the Terrapin Run area is dominated by agricultural or forest land, Allegany is required to designate this area as Tier IV in the adopted map (LU 1-508(a)(4)). Cecil The Tier map violates the Act because it does not include in Tier IV the county s Priority Preservation Area, Rural Legacy Areas, areas planned and zoned for land, agricultural, or resource protection, preservation or conservation, and areas dominated by agricultural lands, forest lands, or other natural areas. Only protected lands are mapped as Tier IV on the county s Tier map. The adopted Tier map does not include as Tier I or II all portions of the county s locally designated growth areas. The adopted Tier map also does not include as Tier II all areas planned to be served by public sewerage systems and in the Municipal Growth Element Frederick the adopted map violates the growth tier criteria in LU 1-508 as follows: (1) Tier IV does not include the s Priority Preservation Areas, Rural Legacy Areas, lands under easement or restrictive covenants, lands planned or zoned for agricultural, resource protection, preservation, or conservation, and areas dominated by agricultural use, forest lands, or other natural features. LU 1-508(a)(4).1 (2) Tier I and Tier II does not include all portions of the county s locally designated growth areas. LU 1-508(a)(1) and (2). (3) Tier II does not include all areas planned to be served by public sewerage systems and in the Municipal Growth Element. LU 1-508(a)(2). To facilitate tier map development, MDP developed an online mapping tool, the SB236 Implementation Guidance Map (Tier Builder Map), that allows jurisdictions to map and visualize all necessary geographic information for tier mapping. The tool can be used to provide an approximation, in conformance with the tier mapping criteria in SB236, of what Tiers I, II, III and IV should look like and illustrates how statewide tier maps closely conform to local zoning and sewer service areas. See http://planning.maryland.gov/ourwork/sb236tierbuild.shtml for the statewide composite tier map. Using the statewide composite tier map for comparison, which applies the statutory 8
provision for tier designation, the differences between a tier map in conformance with SB236 and the adopted tier maps for Cecil and Frederick are stark (Figures 3 and 4): Figure 3. Cecil : Difference between Statewide Composite Tier Map and Adopted Tier Map By proposing Tier III in very large areas of Cecil that were required by law to be mapped as Tier IV, the adopted Cecil tier map will lead to significant environmental impacts to the s water bodies and environmental resources, and will threaten the county s significant agricultural resources. The latest agricultural census reports that there are almost 600 farms in Cecil, generating almost $100 million in market value of agricultural products sold. If Cecil adopted a map that conformed to the law, the following environmental impacts could be avoided (through build-out): 3,252 additional lots using septic tanks, resulting in the loss of approximately 6,504 acres of farms and forest, and an additional 74,861 9
lbs. per year of nitrogen to the environment (urban stormwater and septic impacts, both to groundwater and edge-of-stream), assuming Best Available Technology (BAT) for septic tanks. For comparison, the sum of the limits of maximum nitrogen discharge to local streams for all of the major WWTPs in Cecil within the Chesapeake Bay watershed equals 84,302 lbs. of nitrogen per year, specifically, Elkton (37,156 lbs. N/yr), Seneca Point/North East Regional (27,045 lbs. N/yr), and Perryville (20,101 lbs. N/yr). 1,490 of the 3,252 additional lots would be located within the Maryland Department of Natural Resources' GreenPrint Targeted Ecological Areas, which are lands and watersheds identified by DNR as the most ecologically valuable areas in the State. They are the best of the best in Maryland. See http://www.greenprint.maryland.gov/ for more information and maps of the Targeted Ecological Areas within Cecil. 423 of the 3,252 additional lots would be located within MDE-Designated High Quality Waters. See http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/water/tmdl/water%20quali ty%20standards/pages/highqualitywatersmap.aspx for maps of these water bodies within Cecil. 10
Figure 4. Frederick : Difference between Statewide Composite Tier Map and Adopted Tier Map By proposing Tier III in very large areas of Frederick that were required by law to be mapped as Tier IV, the adopted Frederick tier map will lead to significant environmental impacts to the s water bodies and environmental resources, and will threaten the county s significant agricultural resources. The latest agricultural census reports that there are almost 1,500 farms in Frederick, generating more than $125 million in market value of agricultural products sold. If Frederick adopted a map that conformed to the law, the following environmental impacts could be avoided through build-out: 1,682 additional lots using septic tanks, resulting in the loss of approximately 3,364 acres of farms and forest, and an additional 38,720 lbs. per year of nitrogen to the environment (urban stormwater and septic impacts, both to groundwater and edge-of-stream), assuming Best 11
Available Technology (BAT) for septic tanks. For comparison, the sum of the limits of maximum nitrogen discharge to local streams for the major WWTPs in Brunswick (17,055 lbs. N/yr), Emmitsburg (9,137 lbs. N/yr), and Thurmont (12,182 lbs. N/yr) equals 38,374 lbs. of nitrogen per year. 517 of the 1,682 additional lots would be located within the Maryland Department of Natural Resources' GreenPrint Targeted Ecological Areas, which are lands and watersheds identified by DNR as the most ecologically valuable areas in the State. They are the best of the best in Maryland. See http://www.greenprint.maryland.gov/ for more information and maps of the Targeted Ecological Areas within Frederick. Figure 5 provides a visualization of the extent of environmental and agricultural impacts from major subdivisions on septic within Cecil and Frederick that could be avoided if the counties had adopted tier maps that conformed to the statutory tier criteria. Figure 5. Areas where Major Subdivisions on Septic will occur that are required to be designated Tier IV under the law 12
Status of Counties without Adopted Tier Maps Of the twelve counties that have not adopted tier maps as of February 1, 2013: One (Howard) might adopt a tier map in February; Three (Charles, Wicomico, Worcester) will continue public s during the legislative session; Four (Anne Arundel, Caroline, Carroll, Queen Anne s) are completing other planning updates (water/sewer plan for Anne Arundel, comprehensive rezoning for Caroline, and comprehensive plan for Carroll and Queen Anne s) before considering a tier map; and Four (Calvert, Dorchester, St. Mary s, and Washington) have made the decision to wait until after the 2013 legislative session before revisiting the tier map. Howard, Charles, and Washington have proposed tier maps for public that largely do not conform to the law. MDP sent informal map-based reviews and pre-adoption letters to each of these jurisdictions to ensure they knew as early in the process as possible that MDP would formally comment if the draft tier maps under consideration were adopted. Excerpts from MDP s pre-adoption letters and map-based reviews can be found in Appendix D. If the three draft tier maps are adopted without change, significant environmental and agricultural impacts from septic development will occur. 13
Changes to Local Ordinances, Regulations and Plans The Act prohibits residential major subdivisions within Tier IV on on-site sewerage systems (for counties that have not received an exemption) and in all counties without an adopted tier map outside of sewered areas. The law allowed local jurisdictions to adopt or change their existing definitions or descriptions of minor or major subdivisions on or before December 31, 2012, to allow a maximum of 7 lots for a residential minor subdivision. Sixteen of the 24 counties changed their existing definitions of minor or major subdivisions to allow the maximum of 7 lots of a minor subdivision (see Figure 6). As a result, SB236 will allow 5,000 more septic lots by 2035 than forecasted. Figure 6. Counties that Changed their Minor and Major Subdivision Definitions Under SB236 The Act also authorized a local jurisdiction, at any time, to enact an ordinance for the transfer of the right to subdivide, up to seven lots, by an owner of property used for agricultural activities to the owner of another property used for agricultural activities (Environment Article, 9-206(M)). A property used for agricultural 14
activities, the owner of which receives rights to subdivide through this provision, is limited to a total of 15 lots and the lots must be clustered. The transfers authorized by this provision may only take place within Tier IV. The transfer of rights to subdivide from Tier III to Tier IV are not allowed. In addition to considering the above provisions, some jurisdictions have made or proposed other types of changes to local ordinances, regulations and plans in response to the Act. These include planning and zoning changes to greatly reduce the amount of potentially Tier IV land, such as within comprehensive plans to change the purpose of agricultural land use designations (Charles ), changes to Rural Legacy Area boundaries (Calvert ), and changes to the date of parcels eligible for subdivision (Calvert, Carroll, Charles, Harford, Somerset and Wicomico). In some cases, changing the date of parcels eligible for subdivision can make remainder parcels (for example, large open space parcels leftover from cluster subdivisions in agricultural zones) eligible for development, even though they were not previously envisioned for development under the local ordinances. MDP will continue to monitor and assess the impacts of these changes. Tables 2a and 2b describe, for each county, the changes to local ordinances, regulations and plans that were made in response to the Act. Appendix C lists the definitions of minor and major subdivisions chosen by each jurisdiction to apply to SB236 implementation. 15
Table 2a. Changes to Local Ordinances, Regulations and Plans in Response to SB236 (see explanation in Table 2b below for Yes responses) Jurisdiction Minor Subdivision Definition Change? Change in Date of Parcels Eligible for Subdivision? Comprehensive Plan Change? Rural Legacy Area Change? Clarification regarding Agricultural Lots? Optional TDR Provision Implemented? Allegany Yes 1 No No No No No Anne Arundel No No No No No No Baltimore City No No No No No No Baltimore No No No No No No Calvert Yes 2 Yes 3 No Yes 4 No Yes 5 Caroline No No No No No No Carroll Yes 6 Yes 7 No No No No Cecil No No No No No No Charles Yes 8 Yes 9 Yes 10 No No No Dorchester Yes 11 No No No No No Frederick No No No No Yes 12 No Garrett Yes 13 No No No No No Harford Yes 14 Yes 15 No No No No Howard No No No No No No Kent Yes 16 No No No No No Montgomery Yes 17 No No No No No 16
Jurisdiction Minor Subdivision Definition Change? Change in Date of Parcels Eligible for Subdivision? Comprehensive Plan Change? Rural Legacy Area Change? Clarification regarding Agricultural Lots? Optional TDR Provision Implemented? Prince George s Queen Anne s Yes 18 No No No No Yes 19 Yes 20 No No No No No Somerset Yes 21 Yes 22 No No No No St. Mary s Yes 23 No No No No No Talbot Yes 24 No No No No No Washington Yes 25 No No No No No Wicomico Yes 26 Yes 27 No No No No Worcester No No No No No No Municipalities Hampstead Yes 28 No No No No No Table 2b. Explanation of Changes to Local Ordinances, Regulations and Plans in Response to SB236 from Table 2a above # Jurisdiction Explanation of change 1 Allegany Allegany : Minor subdivision definition changed from 5 lots to 7 lots (Source: Code Home Rule Bill No. 8-12 Minor Subdivisions ; adopted 11/8/12) 2 Calvert Minor subdivision definition changed from 5 lots to 7 lots (Source: Ordinance 64-12; adopted 12/4/12) 3 Calvert A minor subdivision is: when the total number of residential lots or other divisions of land are derived from a parcel of record as of October 1, 2012 Date changed from June 29, 1967. (Source: Ordinance 64-12; adopted 12/4/12) 4 Calvert Recommended by staff to BOCC (Source: 12/4/12 BOCC work session presentation) 17
# Jurisdiction Explanation of change 5 Calvert staff are investigating this provision. MDP has offered legal review and provided technical assistance (Source: 9/6/12 meeting between Calvert staff and MDP) 6 Carroll Minor subdivision definition changed from 3 lots to 7 lots (Source: Ordinance No. 2012-10; adopted 12/20/12) 7 Carroll The preliminary plan will indicate the number of lots that have been created from the parcel since October 1, 2012 Previously no date set (Source: Ordinance No. 2012-10; adopted 12/20/12) 8 Charles Minor subdivision definition changed from 5 lots to 7 lots (Source: Bill No. 2012-12; adopted 12/28/12) 9 Charles a minor subdivision is a subdivision of land which does not involve any of the following more than a total of seven (7) lots from a parcel, residue or remainder in existence on December 31, 2012; provided that any lot resulting from a recorded deed or subdivision plat prior to December 31, 2012, cannot be considered a parcel for purposes of this section Date changed from June 15, 1976. (Source: Bill No. 2012-12; adopted 12/28/12) 10 Charles This 2013 Comprehensive Plan makes a number of changes to the 2006 Comprehensive Plan s Land Use Concept Plan 9. Revises the Rural Residential Land Use Category to be more accurately described as Suburban Large Lot (1 unit per acre) to correspond with the designation of this area as Tier III on the Tier Map. Provides direction for future comprehensive rezoning of this area as such. 10. Revises the majority of the previously designated Agricultural Conservation and Rural Conservation land uses to be more accurately described as Rural Residential Land Use (1 unit per 3 acres) to correspond with the Planning Commission s direction to designate this area as Tier III on the Tier Map such that the future vision for the land use will no longer be dominated by agriculture or forestry, but predominantly residential large lot uses of 3 acres or greater. Provides direction for future comprehensive rezoning of this area as such. (Source: Planning Commission Preliminary Draft, November 2012) 11 Dorchester Minor subdivision definition changed from 4 lots to 7 lots (Source: Bill No. 2012-6; adopted 11/21/12) 12 Frederick Yes; a note shall be placed on the plat stating; the farm lot(s) shown on this plat (is/are) being created for the sole purpose of transfer for use as a farm and not for development approval of farm lots does not guarantee the future approval of a buildable lot if development is ever proposed on a recorded farm lot, the farm lot must be replatted as a buildable lot all subdivision requirements must be met (Source: Ordinance 12-25-620; adopted 9/27/12) 13 Garrett Minor subdivision definition changed from 5 lots to 7 lots (Source: Resolution 2012-14; adopted 8/7/12) 14 Harford Minor subdivision definition changed from 5 lots to 7 lots (Source: Bill 12-50; adopted 12/18/12) 15 Harford subdivision of a parcel as it existed on December 31, 2012 Previously no date set (Source: Bill 12-50; adopted 12/18/12) 16 Kent Minor subdivision definition changed from 5 lots to 7 lots (Source: Code Home Rule Bill No. 3-2012; October 16, 2012) 18
# Jurisdiction Explanation of change 17 Montgomery Minor subdivision definition changed from 5 lots to 7 lots (Source: Ordinance No. 17-20; adopted 9/18/12) 18 Prince George s 19 Prince George s Minor subdivision definition changed from 4 lots to 7 lots (Source: CB-104-2012; adopted 11/20/12) Planning Board passed a motion to direct planning staff to investigate the optional TDR provision (Source: October 4, 2012 Planning Board meeting, The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission) 20 Queen Anne s Minor subdivision definition changed from 5 lots to 7 lots (Source: Ordinance 12-14; adopted 10/9/12) 21 Somerset Minor subdivision definition changed from 5 lots to 7 lots (Source: Bill No. 1049; adopted 11/20/12) 22 Somerset will consider parent parcels as eligible for subdivision if they existed as of July 1, 2012 (Source: change in administrative process, 1/24/13 letter to MDP) 23 St. Mary s Minor subdivision definition changed from 5 lots to 7 lots (Source: Ordinance No. 2012-71; adopted 12/4/12) 24 Talbot New subdivision type small scale created to allow 7 lots within Tier IV (or Tier II if not on public sewer) (Source: Bill 1227 as amended; adopted 12/11/12) 25 Washington Minor subdivision definition changed from 5 lots to 7 lots (Source: Ordinance No. ORD-2012-41; adopted 12/18/12) 26 Wicomico Minor subdivision definition changed from 3 lots to 7 lots (Source: Bill 2012-10; adopted 10/16/12) 27 Wicomico As of July 1, 2012, if the three lots allowed by right within the agricultural zone have not been subdivided from a parcel, then when such lots are subdivided, they can be processed administratively. If the three lots by right already had been subdivided prior to July 1, 2012, then all lots within a new minor subdivision must receive Planning Commission approval (Source: change in administrative process, personal communication) 28 Town of Hampstead Minor subdivision changed from 2 lots to 7 lots (Source: Ordinance No. 498; adopted December 11, 2012) 19
Tier IV Exemptions Counties that adopt a tier map have the option to seek an exemption from the minor subdivision restriction within Tier IV. The Act sets a high standard for counties to meet in order to obtain this exemption. Specifically, counties must have subdivision and zoning requirements in their Tier IV area that result in a protection level of not more than 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres. The purpose of the exemption is to recognize that some local jurisdictions have requirements in place within Tier IV that greatly limit the amount of new major residential subdivisions on septic systems in agricultural and forested areas. MDP first provided direction to counties seeking to pursue the Tier IV exemption within the May 24, 2012 Implementation Guidance for SB236. Next, in collaboration with the Maryland Sustainable Growth Commission, MDP developed (on September 24, 2012) the Tier IV Exemptions to Major Subdivision Restrictions of SB236: Final Protocol for Consultation between MDP and Sustainable Growth Commission. In addition to describing the consultation process between MDP and the Maryland Sustainable Growth Commission, the protocol provides additional detail on analyses and determinations that MDP will complete and share with the Commission as part of the verification process. As of January 14, 2013, one county (Montgomery ) has applied for and received the Tier IV exemption. MDP consulted with the Maryland Sustainable Growth Commission on the Montgomery Tier IV exemption. MDP sent a formal reply letter to Montgomery that verifies the county s Tier IV calculations. As a result, residential major subdivisions on on-site sewerage systems are allowed in Montgomery s Tier IV. Capacity Available for Sewered and Septic Development Even with the limitations on residential major subdivisions served by septic systems imposed by the law, statewide there remains almost 60,000 subdivided, undeveloped residential lots outside of Priority Funding Areas (PFAs) (see Table 3). Together with the amount of development recently grandfathered, as well as other development in the pipeline and not yet subdivided, this provides an indication of how much septic development is already in process. The amount of development recently grandfathered (in 2012 before the initial July 1 and October 1 deadlines) under the law varied greatly (among the counties who provided this information to the State), from as little as zero subdivisions within Montgomery to as many as twenty-one subdivisions (totaling 428 lots) in Howard (data collected by MDE from local environmental health directors). 20
Table 3. Subdivided, undeveloped residential lots 1 acre to 20 acres in size outside of PFAs by county Number of lots Allegany 1,782 Anne Arundel 3,398 Baltimore 3,533 Calvert 2,267 Caroline 1,647 Carroll 2,802 Cecil 2,046 Charles 3,580 Dorchester 2,025 Frederick 3,243 Garrett 4,649 Harford 2,527 Howard 1,684 Kent 812 Montgomery 2,240 Prince George's 4,103 Queen Anne's 1,702 Somerset 2,148 St. Mary's 3,363 Talbot 1,130 Washington 2,465 Wicomico 2,707 Worcester 1,974 TOTAL 57,827 Additional development capacity, sufficient to accommodate almost half a million more housing units on septic, exists within unsubdivided parcels in non-sewered areas. Capacity for septic development also has been expanded in the 16 counties that changed their minor subdivision definition to accommodate a maximum of seven lots. Conversely, there is the potential for about 433,000 housing units within growth areas, and most counties in Maryland have sufficient wastewater treatment plant capacity to accommodate future sewered growth over the next 25 years. 21
Conclusion Consistent with cooperative State / local government efforts in the past, county and municipal planning staff worked well with MDP staff in understanding the tier mapping criteria and provided draft maps for MDP review and preliminary feedback, prior to formal adoption of the maps. MDP reviewed draft tier maps for 56 jurisdictions (20 counties, 36 municipalities), including multiple versions, and provided map-based informal comments to identify areas that did not appear to conform to the tier mapping criteria. For 15 of the 20 draft county tier maps that MDP reviewed, MDP sent pre-adoption letters to the jurisdictions describing any concerns that existed with the draft maps. Many jurisdictions responded positively to MDP s comments and incorporated changes to satisfy the tier mapping criteria contained in the law. Some did not make changes and subsequently adopted maps that did not meet the statutory tier mapping criteria. Of the 12 Counties that have adopted tier maps, 2 counties have largely ignored the law and their own preservation and resource protection plans and policies for identifying Tier IV areas. These counties have identified almost all areas outside sewer planning areas within their jurisdiction as Tier III areas where major subdivisions on septics would be allowed, which is in direct conflict with the statutory criteria for the growth tiers. This approach essentially neutralizes the impact of the law. This will allow many more major subdivisions on septic and result in significant land consumption and water pollution impacts. Eight of the 12 counties with adopted tier maps appear to substantially meet the mapping criteria, as do the municipalities that have adopted tier maps that MDP has reviewed. With regard to changes in subdivision definitions, as allowed under SB236, twothirds of the counties (16) have changed their definition of minor subdivision to increase it to 7 lots or less. The result of this will be that larger minor subdivisions will be allowed, creating 5,000 more septic lots than forecasted by 2035. Next Steps MDP will continue to work with those local governments that have not adopted tier maps to provide whatever assistance and support is necessary for them to do so. For jurisdictions with adopted tier maps that received MDP comment letters, MDP will coordinate with them in preparation for their required public hearing and to hopefully bring their maps into compliance. At the time of writing the administration is considering options for how to best respond to the counties with problematic tier maps. 22
Appendix A. Meetings and Presentations with Local Governments and Stakeholders Jurisdiction/Organization Type of Meeting Date of Meeting Maryland Conference of Local Environmental Health Directors Prince George s Discussion 5/17/12 5/17/12 Baltimore City Discussion 5/18/12 Planning Directors Roundtable Presentation and 5/24/12 St. Mary s 6/7/12 Somerset and Town of Discussion 6/20/12 Princess Anne Worcester, Town of Discussion 6/20/12 Snow Hill, and Pocomoke City Prince George s Presentation at public outreach 6/20/12 meeting Maryland Municipal League Presentation and 6/25/12, 6/26/12, 6/27/12 (MML) conference Governor s Intergovernmental Presentation and 6/25/12 Commission on Agriculture Kent Discussion 6/26/12 Town of Denton Planning Presentation and 6/26/12 Commission Prince George s Presentation at public outreach 6/27/12 meeting Dorchester Discussion 6/28/12 Howard 6/29/12 Lower Eastern Shore regional Presentation and 7/6/12 meeting (Dorchester, Somerset, Talbot, Wicomico, and Worcester Counties, and fifteen municipalities) Wicomico Discussion 7/6/12 Baltimore Discussion 7/10/12 Garrett Discussion 7/12/12 Maryland Association of Presentation and 7/13/12 Counties (MACo) Princess Anne Town Discussion 7/16/12 Commissioners Maryland State Geographic Presentation of online mapping 7/16/12 Information Committee (MSGIC) application Montgomery 7/18/12 23
Jurisdiction/Organization Type of Meeting Date of Meeting Charles Discussion 7/19/12 Washington Harford Sharptown Planning Commission ESRI conference Talbot 7/20/12 7/23/12 Discussion 7/23/12 Presentation of online mapping application 7/24/12 7/24/12 Calvert Discussion 7/25/12 Princess Anne Planning Commission Discussion 7/26/12 Secretary Planning Commission Discussion 7/31/12 Allegany 8/1/12 Hurlock Discussion 8/1/12 Baltimore City Discussion 8/1/12 Harford 8/2/12 St. Michaels Discussion 8/2/12 Baltimore Montgomery 8/7/12 8/7/12 Fruitland Planning Commission Discussion 8/7/12 Crisfield Mayor and Town Council Discussion 8/8/12 Oxford Discussion 8/8/12 Cecil, Board of Commissioners work session East New Market Planning Commission 8/14/12 Discussion 8/14/12 MACo conference Presentation and 8/16/12 Easton Planning Commission Discussion 8/16/12 Prince George s 8/17/12 Calvert Discussion 8/20/12 Pittsville Town Commissioners Discussion 8/20/12 Trappe Planning Commission Discussion 8/21/12 Whiteford, Taylor and Preston L.L.P Presentation and 8/22/12 MSGIC Lower Shore and Mid Presentation of online mapping 8/22/12 24
Jurisdiction/Organization Type of Meeting Date of Meeting Shore application Vienna Planning Commission Discussion 8/22/12 Washington 8/28/12 Maryland Agricultural Land Presentation and 8/28/12 Preservation Foundation (MALPF) St. Michaels Planning Discussion 8/30/12 Commission Cecil municipalities Discussion 8/30/12 Grantsville Mayor Discussion 9/1/12 Queen Anne s Discussion 9/5/12 Easton Planning Commission Discussion 9/5/12 Calvert Discussion 9/6/12 Maryland Environmental Trust Presentation and 9/10/12 Board of Trustees Montgomery Council, Invited to attend to answer 9/10/12 Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee questions Willards Town Council Discussion 9/10/12 Hurlock Mayor and Town Discussion 9/10/12 Council Carroll Discussion 9/11/12 Town of Westminster Discussion 9/14/12 Centreville Discussion 9/14/12 Cambridge Discussion 9/17/12 Church Creek Mayor and Town Discussion 9/17/12 Council Pittsville Town Commissioners 9/17/12 Montgomery Council Invited to attend to answer 9/18/12 questions Dorchester 9/19/12 Anne Arundel 9/20/12 Town of Federalsburg Discussion 9/20/12 Sharptown Planning Discussion 9/24/12 Commission Garrett 9/25/12 Pocomoke City Planning Commission Kent 9/25/12 9/26/12 25
Jurisdiction/Organization Type of Meeting Date of Meeting Chestertown Planning Commission St. Michaels Town Commissioners Princess Anne Planning Commission Howard Fruitland Planning Commission Discussion 9/26/12 Presentation and 9/26/12 9/27/12 10/2/12 10/2/12 Hebron Town Commissioners Discussion 10/3/12 Mardela Springs Town Commissioners and adoption 10/4/12 Henderson Town Commission Presentation and 10/4/12 Town of Greensboro Discussion 10/4/12 Town of Marydel Discussion 10/4/12 Town of Preston Discussion 10/4/12 Town of Ridgely Discussion 10/4/12 Secretary Mayor and Town Council Vienna Mayor and Town Council Discussion and adoption 10/5/12 Discussion and adoption 10/5/12 Hurlock Mayor and Council Discussion and adoption 10/9/12 Fruitland City Council Crisfield Mayor and City Council Queen Anne s Planning Commission Calvert Pittsville Town Commissioners Church Creek Mayor and Council and adoption and adoption 10/9/12 10/10/12 Discussion 10/11/12 and adoption 10/15/12 10/15/12 Discussion and adoption 10/15/12 Wicomico Council Discussion 10/16/12 Town of Mt. Airy Discussion 10/16/12 Baltimore Frederick St. Michaels Town Commissioners Kent 10/22/12 10/24/12 10/24/12 10/25/12 Worcester, Snow Hill Discussion of draft municipal 10/26/12 26
Jurisdiction/Organization Type of Meeting Date of Meeting and Pocomoke City Sharptown Town Commissioners Princess Anne Town Commissioners tier maps, comparison to draft tier map 11/5/12 and adoption Discussion and adoption 11/5/12 Oxford Planning Commission Discussion 11/6/12 Somerset 11/7/12 St. Mary s Discussion 11/13/12 Commissioners Joint Subcommittee on Program Presentation and 11/13/12 Open Space and Agricultural Land Preservation meeting East New Market Mayor and Discussion 11/13/12 Council Delmar Town Manager Discussion 11/14/12 Town of Queen Anne Elected Discussion 11/14/12 Officials Anne Arundel 11/20/12 Willards Town Council 11/20/12 Howard Council work session Invited to attend to answer questions 11/26/12 Pocomoke City Planning Commission Environmental Matters Committee retreat Calvert Board of Commissioners 11/27/12 Presentation and 11/28/12 Discussion 12/4/12 Prince George s Discussion 12/6/12 Elkton and North East 12/6/12 Berlin Mayor and Council 12/10/12 Meeting Delmar Planning Commission 12/13/12 Chesapeake City Discussion 12/17/12 MACo conference Presentation and 1/3/13 Somerset Discussion 1/9/13 Carroll Discussion 1/17/13 Delmar Mayor and Council and adoption 1/28/13 27
Appendix B. Municipal Tier Adoption Status (as of February 1, 2013) Municipalities with Planning and Zoning Authority Allegany Tier Map Adoption Date Cumberland 12/18/12 Frostburg 9/21/12 Lonaconing 12/20/12 Westernport 12/20/12 Anne Arundel Annapolis 11/19/12 Calvert Chesapeake Beach North Beach 11/9/12 Caroline Denton 9/6/12 Federalsburg 12/3/12 Goldsboro Greensboro Henderson Hillsboro Marydel Preston Ridgely Carroll Hampstead 12/4/12 Manchester 12/11/12 Mount Airy New Windsor 11/7/12 28
Municipalities with Planning and Zoning Authority Tier Map Adoption Date Sykesville 12/20/12 Taneytown 12/27/12 Union Bridge 12/20/12 Westminster 12/7/12 Cecil Cecilton Charlestown Chesapeake City Elkton 12/20/12 North East 1/11/13 Perryville Port Deposit Rising Sun Charles Indian Head La Plata 12/18/12 Dorchester Cambridge 12/10/12 Church Creek 10/15/12 East New Market 11/13/12 Hurlock 10/9/12 Secretary 10/2/12 Vienna 10/8/12 Frederick Brunswick Burkittsville Emmitsburg 29
Municipalities with Planning and Zoning Authority Frederick City Tier Map Adoption Date Middletown 12/20/12 Myersville 12/20/12 New Market Thurmont Walkersville 1/9/13 Woodsboro Garrett Accident Deer Park Friendsville 12/10/12 Grantsville 12/10/12 Kitzmiller Loch Lynn Heights 12/4/12 Mountain Lake Park Oakland Harford Aberdeen 12/20/12 Bel Air 12/20/12 Havre de Grace 12/20/12 Kent Betterton Chestertown 12/3/12 Galena 1/7/13 Millington Rock Hall 30
Municipalities with Planning and Zoning Authority Montgomery Tier Map Adoption Date Barnesville 12/6/12 Brookeville Gaithersburg 11/19/12 Laytonsville Poolesville Rockville 12/27/12 Washington Grove Prince George s Laurel Queen Anne s Barclay Centreville Church Hill Queen Anne Queenstown 12/11/12 Sudlersville Templeville St. Mary s Leonardtown Somerset Crisfield 10/10/12 Princess Anne 11/5/12 Talbot Easton 12/28/12 Oxford 11/13/12 St. Michaels 10/24/12 31
Municipalities with Planning and Zoning Authority Tier Map Adoption Date Trappe 12/5/12 Washington Boonsboro 11/5/12 Clear Spring Funkstown Hagerstown 10/23/12 Hancock Keedysville 12/3/12 Sharpsburg Smithsburg 12/4/12 Williamsport 1/14/13 Wicomico Delmar Fruitland 10/9/12 Hebron 10/17/12 Mardela Springs 10/4/12 Pittsville 10/15/12 Salisbury 12/28/12 Sharptown 11/5/12 Willards 12/10/12 Worcester Berlin 1/14/13 Ocean City 10/9/12 Pocomoke City 12/3/12 Snow Hill 11/13/12 32
Appendix C. Definitions of minor and major subdivisions that apply to SB236 implementation Jurisdiction Minor Subdivision Major Subdivision Counties Allegany 7 lots or fewer: (1) All parcels in any zoning district which were recorded previous to March 3, 1972, may be subdivided into 7 lots or less, including the remainder or original parcel however, no more than 5 lots may be created from any parcel on any right-of-way beyond or State road maintenance. (2) In a case in which a developer wishes to create lots which cross the boundaries of adjoining parcels existing prior to March 3, 1972, the Planning Commission may grant approval to allow more than 7 lots or portions of lots in any existing parcel, provided that the total number of lots created does not exceed 7 lots per existing parcel. Source of Definitions 8 lots or more Code Home Rule Bill No. 8-12, Minor Subdivisions ; adopted 11/8/12 Anne Arundel 5 lots or fewer 6 lots or more Existing definitions; no change made before 12/31/12 Baltimore City 3 lots or fewer: The reestablishment of a previously existing lot line(s) for adjoining lots that have been consolidated. The parent lot must not include more than 3 total lots for the purpose of transfer of ownership of all or a portion thereof, where the resulting lots and/or structures front on an existing public or private street and conform to all applicable zoning regulations. 4 lots or more: Any subdivision of a parent lot into 4 or more total lots for the purpose of transfer of ownership of all or a portion thereof. Existing definitions; no change made before 12/31/12; 11/13/12 tier map adoption letter to MDP identified definitions applicable to SB236 Baltimore 3 lots or fewer 4 lots or more Existing definitions; no 33
Jurisdiction Minor Subdivision Major Subdivision Source of Definitions change made before 12/31/12 Calvert 7 lots or fewer: (1) When the total number of residential lots or other divisions of land subject to Article 7 are derived from a parcel of record as of October 1, 2012 is less than seven. (2) Any division of land for development purposes that does not require the creation of any new right-of-way, other than a private lane; except that residential minor subdivisions creating a public right of way will be considered a minor subdivision with Planning Commission approval. 8 lots or more: When the total number of new residential lots or other divisions of land subject to Article 7 are derived from a parcel of record as of October 1, 2012 is eight or more. (2) Any division of nonresidential land for development purposes and/or the creation of any new public rights-of way; except that residential minor subdivisions creating a public right of way will be considered a minor subdivision with Planning Commission approval. Ordinance 64-12; adopted 12/4/12 Caroline 4 lots or fewer 5 lots or more Existing definitions; no change made before 12/31/12 Carroll 7 lots or fewer: A septic minor subdivision will be defined as up to 7 new lots for purposes of the applicability of Health Department approval of on-site disposal systems. 8 lots or more Ordinance No. 2012-10; adopted 12/20/12 Cecil 4 lots or fewer 5 lots or more Existing definitions; no change made before 12/31/12 34
Jurisdiction Minor Subdivision Major Subdivision Charles 7 lots or fewer: a minor subdivision is a subdivision of land which does not involve any of the following: i. The creation of more than a total of five (5) lots, from a parcel that was in existence on June 15, 1976, or seven (7) lots from a parcel, residue or remainder in existence on December 31, 2012; provided that any lot resulting from a recorded deed or subdivision plat prior to December 31, 2012, cannot be considered a parcel for purposes of this section. ii. The creation of any new public streets proposed as part of a private development. iii. The extension of a public water or sewer system proposed as part of a private development. iv. The installation of off-site drainage improvements through one or more lots to serve one or more other lots proposed as part of a private development. Source of Definitions 8 lots or more Bill No. 2012--12; adopted 12/28/12 Dorchester Frederick 7 lots or fewer: The division of a single lot, tract or parcel of land existing as of April 1, 1995 into seven (7) or fewer lots, tracts or parcels of land, either all at one time or lot by lot. 8 lots or more: All subdivisions not classified as minor subdivisions including, but not limited to, the division of a single lot, tract or parcel into eight (8) or more lots. Bill No. 2012-6; adopted 11/21/12 5 lots or fewer 6 lots or more Existing definitions; no change made before 12/31/12 35
Jurisdiction Minor Subdivision Major Subdivision Garrett 7 lots or fewer: For purposes of implementation of Section 9-206(A)(6) of the Environment Article as amended by the Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act of 2012 only, a subdivision which results in a maximum of 7 new residential lots of any permitted size in addition to the one pre-existing parent lot. Source of Definitions 8 lots or more Resolution 2012-14; adopted 8/7/12 Harford 7 lots or fewer 8 lots or more: Major subdivision is defined as a residential subdivision of a parcel as it existed on December 31, 2012, that is greater than 7 lots for the purpose of the Maryland Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act of 2012 Bill 12-50; adopted 12/18/12 Howard 4 lots or fewer 5 lots or more Existing definitions; no change made before 12/31/12 Kent 7 lots or fewer: Any subdivision containing seven [or] fewer lots, parcels, sites, or other divisions of land 8 lots or more: Any subdivision containing eight or more lots, parcels, sites, or other divisions of land Code Home Rule Bill No. 3-2012; October 16, 2012 36
Jurisdiction Minor Subdivision Major Subdivision Montgomery Prince George s 7 lots or fewer: In this subsection [Sec. 50-35(e)] a subdivision that would create 7 or fewer residential building lots 7 lots or fewer: On or after October 1, 2012 in Sustainable Growth Tier IV seven (7) or fewer lots in a one-family residential zone, which may also propose remainder parcel(s) restricted to agricultural uses 8 lots or more: In this subsection [Sec. 50-35(e)] a subdivision that would create 8 or more residential building lots Source of Definitions Ordinance No. 17-20; adopted 9/18/12 8 lots or more CB-104-2012; adopted 11/20/12 Queen Anne s Somerset 7 lots or fewer: The subdivision of land into no more than seven lots, including the creation of any required easement or rightsof-way 7 lots or fewer: division of [a] single lot, tract or parcel of land into seven or fewer additional lots, tracts, or parcels of land for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of transfer of ownership or of building development, provided the lots, tracts or parcels of land thereby created have frontage on an improved community street or streets or on an approved private road or street and providing further that there is not created by the subdivision any new street or streets. 8 lots or more Ordinance 12-14; adopted 10/9/12 8 lots or more Ordinance #396 as amended and revised; adopted 11/20/12 St. Mary s 7 lots or fewer: The division of a parcel of record or lot which creates one (1) to seven (7) lots 8 lots or more: Any subdivision containing eight (8) or more lots Ordinance No. 2012-71; adopted 12/4/12 37
Jurisdiction Minor Subdivision Major Subdivision Talbot 7 lots or fewer (new subdivision type created Small Scale Subdivision): Subdivisions, Small Scale this term includes all of the following types of subdivisions located in Tier II which are not served by public sewerage and in Tier IV: A. A subdivision of four or more new parcels or lots, but no more than seven new parcels or lots. B. Subdivision(s) that result(s) in the cumulative creation of four or more lots, but not more than a total of seven new parcels or lots from the original parcel. 8 lots or more (see Small Scale Subdivision definition) Source of Definitions Bill 1227 as amended; adopted 12/11/12 Washington Wicomico 7 lots or fewer: Division of a lot, tract, or parcel into seven (7) or less for the immediate or future transfer of property ownership. 7 lots or fewer: any subdivision that may contain up to seven or fewer lots, plats, sites or other division of land to be served by individual on-site sewerage disposal systems. Minor subdivisions other than those excluded in Section 200-3A shall be subject to all set aside requirements. 8 lots or more: Division of a lot, tract, or parcel into eight (8) or more lots for the immediate or future transfer of property ownership. Ordinance No. ORD- 2012-41; adopted 12/18/12 8 lots or more Bill 2012-10; adopted 10/16/12 Worcester 5 lots or fewer (6 lots if cluster provision used) 6 lots or more Existing definitions; no change made before 12/31/12 38
Municipalities (those that changed existing definitions or clarified which definitions applied to SB236) Barnesville 7 lots or fewer 8 lots or more Ordinance No. 2012-001; adopted 12/6/12 Denton 3 lots or fewer 4 lots or more Existing definitions as stated in 12/11/12 letter to MDP Hampstead 7 lots or fewer 8 lots or more Town Council approved change on 12/11/12 Manchester 3 lots or fewer 4 lots or more Existing definitions as stated in 12/12/12 letter to MDP 39
Appendix D. Excerpts from MDP Pre-Adoption Letters to Counties Allegany Excerpt from MDP Pre-Adoption Letter if the proposed map (dated November 8, 2012) is adopted without changes or without justification by the for mapping Tier II areas that do not appear to be mapped locally designated growth areas, MDP will comment on the adopted tier map some of the Tier II areas shown on the proposed map (dated November 8, 2012) outside of municipal growth areas do not appear to be justified as mapped locally designated growth areas based on the current Allegany Comprehensive Plan (2002 update) or the MDE-approved portions of the Allegany Water and Sewerage Plan. Baltimore if the proposed tier map (dated November 30, 2012) is adopted without any changes, we would not comment on the adopted tier map Calvert Some areas mapped as Tier III should instead be mapped as Tier IV, including areas zoned for agricultural or resource conservation, the Rural Legacy Area, protected lands, and areas dominated by agricultural lands, forest lands, or other natural areas. As part of the s submittal of its adopted tier map to MDP, please include the s justification for mapping Tier III and Tier IV areas in order to address the issues of concern identified above. This will assist us in our review. Cecil if Draft Map 8, Draft Map 9, or Draft Map 10 are adopted without any changes or without justification by the for not mapping Municipal Growth Areas as Tier II or for mapping Tier III areas that meet the criteria for Tier IV, MDP will submit formal comment on the adopted tier map Charles Dorchester Frederick a large amount of the is mapped Tier 3 when it should be mapped Tier 4 per the language in the legislation. The primary purpose of both the Agriculture and Resource Conservation Zones is to protect rural lands; therefore, these two zones should be in Tier 4. if the proposed Tier Map recommended by the Charles Planning Commission on November 5, 2012 is adopted without amendment, MDP will comment on the adopted tiers if the proposed map (dated November 8, 2012) is adopted without any changes or without justification by the for mapping Tier III areas that appear to be areas dominated by agricultural lands, forest lands, or other natural areas, MDP will comment on the adopted tier map Municipalities may choose to coordinate with the county and defer the mapping of their Municipal Growth Areas to the county. 40
Garrett Harford Howard Kent Montgomery Somerset Excerpt from MDP Pre-Adoption Letter For those municipalities that do not defer the tier mapping to the county, the Municipal Growth Areas should be mapped as Tier II or Tier IIA (of if a Municipal Greenbelt, as Tier IVA). Community Growth Areas should not be mapped as Tier III or Tier IV. Some areas mapped as Tier III should instead be mapped as Tier IV, including areas zoned for agricultural or resource conservation, the Rural Legacy Area, and areas dominated by agricultural lands, forest lands, or other natural areas. As part of the s submittal of its adopted tier map to MDP, please include the s justification for mapping Tier III and Tier IV areas in order to address the issues of concern identified above. This will assist us in our review. if the proposed tier map (dated October 12, 2012) is adopted without change or without justification by the for mapping Tier III areas that appear to be areas dominated by agricultural lands, forest lands, or other natural areas, MDP will comment on the adopted tiers for the area outside of the Development Envelope, the [tier] map matches zoning but does not match the s land use plan. Also, the map does not appear to reflect the Aberdeen Municipal Growth Area. MDP would like the to address these issues before adopting the Tier map. if the proposed Tier Map included as Amendment 1 to Howard Council Bill No. 37-2012 is adopted without changes or without justification by the for mapping areas as Tier III that appear to meet the criteria for Tier IV, MDP will comment on the adopted Tier Map. if the proposed tier map (dated October 25, 2012) is adopted without any changes, we would not comment on the adopted tier map if the proposed map (September 6, 2012 memo from Jeffrey Zyontz, Legislative Attorney, to the PHED Committee: Subdivision Regulation Amendment No. 12-01, Revised 9/6/12, Draft No. 2, lines 20-23) is adopted without amendment, MDP does not anticipate that it will comment on the adopted tiers Some areas mapped as Tier III should instead be mapped as Tier IV, including areas zoned for agricultural or resource conservation and areas dominated by agricultural lands, forest lands, or other natural areas. As part of the s submittal of its adopted tier map to MDP, please include justification for mapping Tier III areas 41
Talbot Washington Excerpt from MDP Pre-Adoption Letter that appear to be zoned for agricultural or resource conservation or areas dominated by agricultural lands, forest lands, or other natural areas. This will assist us in our review. MDP has also been informed that the municipalities in Talbot - Easton, St. Michaels, Oxford and Trappe, have worked with the to identify the tiers within municipal boundaries and within their identified growth areas. We would note that the [draft] Tier Map submitted for review on November 29, 2012 has the following inconsistencies with SB 236: some areas that are shown as Tier III should be Tier I because they have existing sewer; areas within the Priority Preservation Area or areas that are zoned for agricultural and resource protection may only be designated as Tier IV, unless they are a Rural Village. Based on these inconsistencies, MDP may comment if these areas are shown on your adopted Tier map. if the proposed tier map (dated November 19, 2012) is adopted without change or without justification, MDP will formally comment on the adopted tiers Our primary concern is with areas that have been identified as Tier III on your Tier map but which appear to align with areas that are planned or zoned for agricultural, resource protection, preservation and conservation, or which are areas dominated by agricultural lands, forest lands, or other natural areas. As such, these areas should be mapped as Tier IV. invisiblate 42
Green.Maryland.gov Martin O Malley, Governor Anthony G. Brown, Lt. Governor Planning.Maryland.gov Richard Eberhart Hall, AICP, Secretary Matthew J. Power, Deputy Secretary 410.767.4500 Toll Free: 1.877.767.6272 TTY users: Maryland Relay