Area Commission

Nobody knows the extent of shoreline development in Maryland.Records tracking homebuilding at the water's edge are nonexistent. The little information available is sketchy and anecdotal and vague, focusing on the side effects of growth rather than actual statistics showing the pace of shoreline development.So as Southern Maryland's population surges -- government planners estimate Calvert, St. Mary's and Charles counties will double in population to 408,800 people by 2020 -- some environmentalists worry that by the time the state takes stock of what has been lost to development, the shoreline will have disappeared.

More than 9,250 Anne Arundel County residents will get free advice next month to help them take better environmental care of their high-priced waterfront property.The South County Environmental Commission will send every waterfront landowner a brochure explaining how to manage the land closest to the water.The buffer, the 100 feet of land from the water's edge, falls under strict state shoreline protections because it is considered environmentally sensitive. Easily eroded by moving water, it can be a conduit for pollutants, or it can be landscaped to protect water and wildlife.

Property owners who want to build on their vacant waterfront lots could escape the long and costly variance process if the County Council approves a plan being developed by county planners.Anne Arundel County officials want to create an internal review for building in waterfront communities established before the 1986 Critical Area Law, said Joseph Elbrich, the county's environmental administrator. He said he did not know how many parcels would be affected.The standards established for building on those lots would provide a "more streamlined" review than the current variance process does, said Sarah Taylor Rogers, director of the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission.

The Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission has given Anne Arundel County 90 days to eliminate loopholes within its shoreline protection program that relax the rules for certain construction projects.The 23-member panel declared two provisions of the county program "deficient" last week because, after more than a year of negotiations, the county's proposed revisions failed to tighten the loopholes, said Chairman John C. North II."They have made some of the changes we requested, others they have not," Judge North said yesterday.

The Anne Arundel County Council has changed its financially troubled pension fund for appointed and elected officials by requiring longer service but increasing the rewards.Several council members said their unanimous vote Monday was an attempt to correct a 4-year-old mistake.The previous council lowered to 50 the age at which an employee can qualify for a pension. The council also increased the benefits paid by the plan. The bill that passed Monday allows retirement with pension at 55, but only if an official has 30 years of service.

The Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission is suing the county to stop a developer from bulldozing and clearing 12 residential lots at Back Bay Beach, a West River subdivision.The suit, filed Friday in Anne Arundel Circuit Court, seeks to overturn a grading permit issued to BMCN Joint Ventures last fall by the county Department of Inspections and Permits.Officials with the 27-member commission declined to comment about the suit yesterday.However, the commission has indicated in the past it believes BMCN's plan to build 71 homes on 22 waterfront acres violates the state Critical Area law. The 1984 statute protects a 1,000-foot strip along the bay and its tributaries from environmentally damaging development.

The Anne Arundel County Council unanimously passed a tougher shoreline protection program last night, although some lawmakers protested that they did so only under pressure from the state.Before the vote, Assistant County Attorney Jamie Insley told the council that if the measure did not pass, the state's Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission would impose its own restrictions on all construction within 1,000 feet of the bay or its tidal tributaries."I would certainly hope that we would rather be the authors of the criteria that our staff has to enforce," Mrs. Insley said.

An Anne Arundel Circuit Court judge upheld yesterday a West River developer's right to build 13 homes within 1,000 feet of tidal water, despite objections from the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission.Judge Eugene M. Lerner denied the commission's request to overturn a county grading and building permit issued last fall to BMCN Joint Ventures that the panel said conflicts with the state's critical area law.Judge Lerner said the permit was issued properly, given that the 22-acre site known as Back Bay Beach was first subdivided in 1921, about 67 years before Anne Arundel County adopted its shoreline protection program.

County planners violated a law protecting the Chesapeake Bay when they issued a grading permit in October 1991 to the developer of 71 homes near Back Bay, the state Critical Area Commission has decided.But the chief judge of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals said the decision came too late and has barred the panel from joining a challenge launched by West River residents to overturn the permit.The residents had lobbied the commission for more than a year to intervene in the legal battle, which already has wound through the county Board of Appeals and the Circuit Court.

The administration of Anne Arundel County Executive Robert R. Neall urged the County Council last night to adopt a new shoreline protection program despite pleas from developers and property owners to eliminate draconian restrictions.Assistant County Attorney Jamie Insley said the county is running out of time before the state intervenes and imposes its own program on the county.Although the county initially set out to update its existing five-year-old Critical Area program as part of a state-mandated, four-year review, "events have overtaken us," Mrs. Insley testified during a council hearing on the new shoreline protection program.

In October 2006, the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission did something extraordinary. Its members voted to deny a town the right to reclassify a large tract of waterfront from a protected "resource conservation area" to a designation that allows intensive development. Such a refusal had never happened before - a sad commentary on the commission's relative impotence under existing law. At issue was a $1 billion golf resort near Dorchester County's Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge.

The O'Malley administration's effort to tighten shoreline development restrictions gained political momentum yesterday, as local officials announced their support for the bill after winning key concessions. But the compromise worried environmental advocates, who said they hope the legislation will still be sufficient to ensure that the 24-year-old Critical Area law can better protect the Chesapeake Bay from development. Developers also continued to object to the proposed rules, saying they go too far. Baltimore County Executive James T. Smith Jr., president of the Maryland Association of Counties, joined administration officials at a hearing before the House Environmental Matters Committee yesterday to declare the support of his politically potent group for the compromise.

To understand why Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Law is not working particularly well, one need look no further than to the Queen Anne's County couple who wanted to build a parking garage on their waterfront lot. Last month, an Eastern Shore judge denied the couple the variance they needed to build it - but only after a yearlong debacle that easily could have been avoided. What's so bad about a three-car garage? By itself, not all that much. But the problem is that the more impervious surface created near the bay and its tributaries, the more harmful runoff pours into the water.

When the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area law was passed by the General Assembly, it was considered the bold centerpiece to Gov. Harry R. Hughes' effort to restore the nation's largest estuary. Land-use issues had long been treated as the sole province of local government. For the first time, the state would have a say on how land within 1,000 feet of the water's edge would be used. But 24 years later, it's clear that the statute needs to be updated. Too often, the goals of the law have been ignored and the 29-member panel charged with overseeing it, the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission, has lacked the necessary authority.

Commission finally acts to protect bay The Sun's article about the Critical Area Commission's blocking the golf resort proposal near Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge warmed my heart ("Shore resort is blocked," Oct. 5). Twenty-some years ago, I was a member of the Environmental Matters Committee of the House of Delegates and worked with my committee member colleagues, Gov. Harry S. Hughes, state House Speaker Benjamin L. Cardin and committee Chairman Larry Young to pass the most far-reaching environmental legislation of that time.

Blackwater Resort a big threat to bay Before the state's Critical Area Commission is a request to grant one of the largest growth allocations ever sought in Maryland. And the commission's decision regarding the proposed Blackwater Resort development near Cambridge will have a lasting impact on the future of development in Maryland and the health of the bay ("Bay group unveils plan of action," Sept. 20). Time and time again, we have found this to be true: How we use our land has everything to do with how healthy our water and its related habitat can be. This is especially true when a developer proposes a 2,700-home mega-development just upstream from a federal wildlife refuge.

CAMBRIDGE -- Plans for a billion-dollar golf resort community that has drawn protests from environmentalists won approval yesterday evening from the Cambridge City Council. The 2,700-home Blackwater Resort project - which opponents view as sprawl that would endanger the nearby Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge - now must receive approval from a state commission appointed by Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. that reviews construction within 1,000 feet of Chesapeake Bay tributaries. Supporters hope the construction on top of wetlands and farm fields will bring thousands of new residents - and millions in tax dollars - to a city of about 11,000 that has lost population since the 1960s.

QUEENSTOWN - Red-winged blackbirds flit among the trees. A doe and her fawn barely glance up from their leafy brunch as golf carts glide past. In the distance beyond the second green, a lone workboat plies the Chester River for crabs. The wildlife and water views of Queenstown Harbor golf links appeal to Pat Dunn. The financial planner from Kensington celebrated his 47th birthday here recently with seven buddies, whacking little white balls around with the Chesapeake Bay for a backdrop.

The future of Shady Side's 477-acre Franklin Point Park is unclear after Anne Arundel County officials pulled out of a longstanding deal to build ball fields on the land. The county pulled out of the deal after the state Critical Area Commission ruled this month that ball fields, parking lots and trails could not be built over wetlands. The park fronts the Chesapeake Bay and features about 271 acres protected by Critical Area laws, which restrict building on environmentally sensitive coastal land.

The state's Critical Area Commission yesterday cleared an environmental hurdle to an African-American history museum's proposed addition in Annapolis, but opponents immediately vowed to appeal. The commission found proposed environmental controls met state standards. Because the planned $5.5 million addition to the Banneker-Douglass Museum is considered a state project, the project did not need to meet the Annapolis city standards that would apply to a project on privately owned land. "We are looking forward to starting construction soon on the addition," said J. Rodney Little, director of the Maryland Historical Trust.