DOCSLIB.ORG

Blossom Point Research Facility Policy Committee Members (In Addition to County Staff)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Blossom Point Research Facility Policy Committee Members (In Addition to County Staff) This page is intentionally blank. This study was prepared under contract with the Charles County Commissioners, Maryland, with financial support from the Office of Economic Adjustment, Department of Defense. The content reflects the views of the Charles County Commissioners and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Economic Adjustment. Planning Consultant: This page is intentionally blank. Mission Statement: The mission of Charles County Government is to provide our citizens the highest quality service possible in a timely, efficient, and courteous manner. To achieve this goal, our government must be operated in an open and accessible atmosphere, be based on comprehensive long- and short-term planning, and have an appropriate managerial organization tempered by fiscal responsibility. Vision Statement: Charles County is a place where all people thrive and businesses grow and prosper; where the preservation of our heritage and environment is paramount; where government services to its citizens are provided at the highest level of excellence; and where the quality of life is the best in the nation. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS County Commissioners of Charles County Candice Quinn Kelly President Reuben B. Collins, II, Esq. Vice President Ken Robinson Debra M. Davis, Esq. Bobby Rucci District 1 District 2 District 4 Charles County Planning Commission Courtney Joseph Edmonds, Esq. Joseph D. Richard Chairman Vice Chairman Robert E. Mitchell Secretary Stephen M. Bunker Louis D. Grasso Joan Jones Joseph E. Tieger ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (CONTINUED ) Rebecca B. Bridgett, Ed.D. County Administrator Charles County Government Department of Planning and Growth Management Peter Aluotto, AICP Director Steven Ball, AICP, LEED AP Planning Director Cathy Thompson Community Planning Program Manager Amy Blessinger Planner III Blossom Point Research Facility Policy Committee Members (in addition to County Staff) Jack Kaiser, Garrison Manager Blossom Point Research Facility Tommy Moorehead U.S. Navy, Naval Research Laboratory Thomas Evans, Assistant Director Military & Federal Affairs State of Maryland, Office of Military & Federal Affairs Amber Levofsky (Ex-officio Committee Member) Office of the Secretary of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. Planning Consultant Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Goals .................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Study Area and Study Focus ................................................................................................................ 1-2 1.3 Process ................................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.4 Background & History ........................................................................................................... 1-4 Chapter 2 Compatibility ..................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.0 Specific Compatibility Issues ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Noise .................................................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2 Vibration .............................................................................................................................................. 2-6 2.3 Frequency Spectrum Interference ...................................................................................................... 2-7 2.4 Vertical Obstructions ........................................................................................................................... 2-9 2.5 Land Use .............................................................................................................................................. 2-9 2.6 Public Trespassing ............................................................................................................................. 2-10 2.7 Other Potential Areas of Community Concern ................................................................................. 2-11 2.8 Summary of Compatibility Concerns ................................................................................................. 2-12 Chapter 3 Data & Analysis .................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.0 General ................................................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Demographics ........................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Existing Land Use ................................................................................................................... 3-6 3.3 Community Services ............................................................................................................ 3-12 3.4 Proposed Improvements in Study Area .............................................................................. 3-12 3.5 On-Post Improvements ....................................................................................................... 3-13 3.6 Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan ............................................................................ 3-13 3.7 Ordinances and Regulations ................................................................................................ 3-14 Chapter 4 Alternatives ........................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Implementation and Changes to the Comprehensive Plan .................................................. 4-1 4.2 Zoning Ordinance Tools ......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Land Preservation Programs ................................................................................................. 4-3 4.4 Real Estate Disclosure ......................................................................................................... 4-16 4.5 Military Influence Overlay District ...................................................................................... 4-18 4.6 Development Review Process ............................................................................................. 4-18 4.7 Other Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 4-19 4.8 Summary of Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 4-21 Chapter 5 Recommendations & Conclusions .......................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Recommendations................................................................................................................ 5-1 5.2 Goals, Objectives, and Policies…………………………………………………………………………………….. 5-2 5.3 Implementation Plan ............................................................................................................ 5-4 5.4 Conclusions and Future Recommendations…………………………………………………………………. 5-8 Appendix A: References Appendix B: Zoning Regulations Appendix C: Public Participation Appendix D: Build-Out Analysis Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Military installations are critical to local, regional, and state economies throughout the United States, generating tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in direct and indirect economic activity annually. The State of Maryland is fortunate to be home to several large military installations, including Andrews Air Force Base, Patuxent River Naval Air Station, and Fort Meade. Several smaller installations, including the Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center and the Blossom Point Research Facility (BPRF) are located in Charles County, Maryland. Planning for military installations has been important to the County, as the presence of these facilities provides a strong economic base for the County and region. In 2005, Congress established the Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) to review military installations around the country. In an effort to protect the future existence of BPRF, The U.S. Army has worked cooperatively with Charles County to obtain federal funds to study the compatibility of the Blossom Point Research Facility and neighboring community, in an effort to ensure the facility’s long term ability to meet their mission at this location. 1.1 Goals A Joint Land Use Study, or JLUS, is produced by the local jurisdiction, in this case Charles County, Maryland. It is intended to benefit both the local community and the military installation as a basic planning process designed to identify issues confronting both the civilian community and the military installation and to recommend strategies to address the issues in the context of local comprehensive and general planning programs. A. The general JLUS program goals include:1 1. To encourage cooperative land use planning between military installations and the surrounding communities so that future civilian growth and development are compatible with operational missions of the installation; and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2014 Charles County Priority Letter
    I April 8,2014 The Honorable James T. Smith, Jr. Secretary Maryland Department of Transportation 7201 Corporate Center Drive Hanover, Maryland 2 1076 Dear Secretary Smith: Thank you for the opportunity to present Charles County’s transportation priorities for fiscal year 20 15, in anticipation of our annual tour meeting with you in the fall. Throughout the past year, we have been working closely with the individual modal administrations of the Maryland Department of Transportation, with our elected colleagues in neighboring jurisdictions, and with the Transportation Planning Board of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments and the Tri-County Council for Southern Maryland, to address our significant local and regional priorities. We appreciate the Maryland Transportation Authority’s efforts to secure a “Record of Decision” for the replacement of the Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge, and the commitment of $56 Million in the current Consolidated Transportation Program for the engineering and right-of-way acquisition of the new bridge. We would also like to express our appreciation to staff of the Maryland Transit Administration and the Maryland State Highway Administration for their sustained efforts to assist Charles and Prince George’s counties in planning for fixed-route, high-capacity transit (Light Rail) service in the MD 5AJ.S. 301 corridor: from the Branch Avenue Metrorail Station to Waldorf and White Plains. Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to the State Highway Administration for their action to replace the MD 234 (Budds Creek Road) bridge over Allens Fresh, following the severe storms and flood waters that destroyed the previous structure.
    [Show full text]
  • Hughesville Revitalization Plan Chapter 4: Environmental Resources
    Hughesville Revitalization Plan Hughesville Sub-Area Plan Existing Conditions Report Chapter 4: Environmental Resources The region is rich with environmentally sensitive areas and natural resources. According to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR), there are two environmentally sensitive areas within the Hughesville Study Area, including National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) recognized wetlands and a potential greenway (refer to Map 7: Environmentally Sensitive Areas). There are also several environmentally sensitive features adjacent to Hughesville including Rural Legacy Areas, Wetlands of Special State Concern (WSSC), Maryland Environmental Trust Easements (MET), Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF) lands, DNR Lands, and Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) eligible areas. According to DNR data, the Hughesville Study Area is located within the Lower Potomac River and Patuxent River watersheds, specifically the Gilbert Swamp and Patuxent River Lower sub basins. Preservation Programs The Charles County MET Program and the Rural Legacy Program function as environment protection programs with an added benefit that they often preserve properties with historic significance. The following is a brief description of each program. Maryland Environmental Trust (MET) The Maryland Environmental Trust, an agency of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR), holds conservation easements on natural, agricultural, scenic, and historic properties and is the co-holder of numerous easements across the state with the Maryland Historical Trust. Rural Legacy Program DNR’s Rural Legacy Program was established in 1997. Part of the State’s Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Initiative, it is designed to conserve land by protecting areas rich in farms, forests, and natural and cultural resources. The Program achieves this by partnering with local governments, land trusts, and citizens in the purchase of conservation easements.
    [Show full text]
  • Julrec99.Pdf
    July 1999 ForFor thethe RecordRecord Oil operation permit for sludge solidification permit TAMKO ROOFING PRODUCTS, INC. - 4500 The following is a list of PHIPPS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS, OTTIS E. BREEDING , SR. – Denton, MD Tamko Drive, Frederick, MD 21701. (TR MDE’s permiting activity from - 4300 Shannon Drive, Baltimore, MD 21213. (89-SP-0332) Application received for a 5447) Received an air permit to construct for a May 15 - June 15, 1999 (TR 5452) Received an air permit to construct renewal of a surface mine permit on Route 313 modification to an existing storage tank area for one concrete crusher For information on these PROFESSIONAL DISPOSAL SERVICES, INC. Carroll County Garrett County permits, please call MDE’s - 7107 Commercial Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21237. (99-OPX-2597) Oil operation permit Environmental Permits Service RONALD YOHN FARM - Wentz Road, HARBISON-WALKER REFRACTORIES - for sludge solidification Manchester, MD 21102. Sewage sludge 16306 Bittinger Road, Grantsville, MD 21536. Center at (410) 631-3772. STRATUS PETROLEUM CORPORATION - application on agricultural land (1999-11-00026) Air quality permit to operate 3100 Vera Street, Baltimore City, MD 21226. JENKINS DEVELOPMENT CO., - Applications Received (99-ODS-3487) Surface water discharge for oil Cecil County Lonaconing, MD (SM-87-411) Application terminal received for significant modification. U.S. TAG & LABEL COMPANY - 2208 HARBOUR VIEW WASTE WATER TREAT- Aisquith Street, Baltimore, MD 21218. (TR Allegany County MENT PLANT - Dartmouth Road, Chesa- 5426) Received an air permit to construct for Harford County peake City, MD 21915. (99DP0496) Surface one heat-set web printing press AMCELLE RF - Route 220, Cumberland, MD municipal discharge permit 21502.
    [Show full text]
  • Stephen H. Scott [email protected] You Can
    204 Washington Ave Suite 200 SCOTT La Plata, MD 20646 PHONE (301) 870-5355 LAW GROUP LLC FAX (301) 870-6471 Stephen H. Scott [email protected] ATTORNEY AT LAW HAND DELIVERED March 3,2016 Board of Appeals for the Town of La Plata c/o Danielle Mandley Clerk to the Town of La Plata 305 Queen Anne Street La Plata, Maryland 20646 Re: Case Number: CY 15-OlSE Dear Board of Appeals: This letter is intended to supplement the Petition, exhibits and other submissions of the applicant in these proceedings. Following the public hearing held before the Board of Appeals in this case on August 3, 2015, the Board of Appeals issued an Order dated August 10, 2015. In this Order, the Board of Appeals approved the special exception application, subject to two conditions: 1. That the restaurant be developed, established and maintained substantially in accordance with the site plan (revised June 30, 2015) presented by the applicant in these proceedings. The final site plan for the project, as approved by the Planning Commission and by the Design Review Board, is attached hereto, and made a part hereof, as EXHIBIT A. As you can see, this site plan is substantially in accordance with the site plan submitted in these proceedings with such refinements as have been required by the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board. 2. That vehicular access between the site and Maryland Route 6 be limited to ingress only from eastbound Route 6, by means of a channelized "right turn only" point of entry designed to preclude left turn entry from westbound Route 6 and egress from the site to Maryland Route 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Hughesville Village Revitalization Plan
    Hughesville Village Revitalization Plan HUGHESVILLE VILLAGE REVITALIZATION PLAN May 2007 Page i Hughesville Village Revitalization Plan Page ii Hughesville Village Revitalization Plan COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CHARLES COUNTY Wayne Cooper, President Robert J. Fuller Dr. Edith J. Patterson Allan R. Smith Candice Quinn Kelly Mission Statement The mission of Charles County Government is to provide our citizens the highest quality service possible in a timely, efficient, and courteous manner. To achieve this goal, government must be operated in an open and accessible atmosphere, be based on comprehensive long-and short-term planning, have an appropriate managerial organization tempered by fiscal responsibility. Vision Statement Charles County is a place where all people thrive and businesses grow and prosper; where the preservation of our heritage and environment is paramount; where government services to its citizens are provided at the highest level of excellence; and where the quality of life is the best in the nation. Page iii Hughesville Village Revitalization Plan Acknowledgements Charles County Planning Commission Raymond Detig, Chairman Roberta Wise, Vice Chairman Duncan Creelman, Secretary Louis Grasso Gail D. Manuel Joseph Richard Robert E. Mitchell Charles County Government Department of Planning and Growth Management Melvin C. Beall, Jr., P.E. Acting Director David Umling, Planning Director Cathy Hardy, Community Planning Program Manager Sheila Geisert, Planning Technician Hughesville Revitalization Advisory Committee Dorothy M.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland.Gov MARYLAND
    www.dnr.maryland.gov MARYLAND FISHING 2016 GUIDE WHAT’S NEW for 2016 See page 6 Also inside... • License Information • Seasons, Sizes & Limits • Fish Identification • Public Lakes & Ponds • Blue Crabs • Oysters & Clams NONTIDAL | TIDAL | CHESAPEAKE BAY | COASTAL BAYS | ATLANTIC OCEAN Take Us With You On the Water UNLIMITED TOWING just $158 THOUSANDS OF TOWS AND YEARS OF EXPERIENCE work in your favor—we’ve been there, done that, and seen it all! Our captains are licensed and trustworthy. With over 600 boats in 300 ports nationwide, we’re only a quick call away to assist you on the water when you need it most. Get Unlimited Towing for $158 and just show your BoatU.S. Membership card for payment on the water. Download the NEW & IMPROVED Call or go online now to join! BoatU.S. App! 1-800-888-4869 BoatUS.com/towing Unlimited towing details and exclusions can be found online at BoatUS.com/towing or by calling. FishingRegs MD_8.25x10.75.indd 1 11/4/15 10:38 AM www.dnr.maryland.gov 38 40 page 24 44 CONTENTS 45 What’s New For 2016����������������������������� 6 Put-and-Take Striped Bass����������������������������������� 38–39 Trout Fishing Areas������������������������22–23 DNR Addresses Sport Fish State Records Rules & Phone Numbers���������������������������������� 8 Special Management Areas & Procedures�����������������������������������������39 Trout������������������������������������������24–25 Natural Resource Police Blue Crabs���������������������������������������40–41 Information���������������������������������������������� 8 AllSpecies��������������������������������������26
    [Show full text]
  • SNE East EA and FONSI's.Pdf
    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Environmental Assessment describes the ecological, cultural and social issues associated with the proposed clearing and preparation of a fifteen (15) acre site and the construction and operation of a satellite ground communications terminal facility (SNE East) at the US Army’s Adelphi Laboratory Center’s (ALC) Blossom Point Research Facility (BPRF) and clearing of an associated line of sight area. The preferred alternative site is immediately southeast of the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) Blossom Point Tracking Facility (BPTF). The site of the proposed array is within an area currently leased by the US Army to the US Navy for operation of the BPTF. The National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) will operate the proposed mission critical facility in cooperation with the US Naval Research Laboratory. The proposed site clearing, preparation and construction of the new satellite ground communications terminal facility and associated line of sight area and operation of the facility will provide for the critical mission of tracking satellites in space to continue. Proposed Action In order to accomplish the mission of the NRL BPTF and NASA, the Adelphi Laboratory Center (ALC) has proposed to clear a fifteen (15) acre area of existing vegetation, perform site preparation activities, construct a satellite ground communications terminal facility in an area immediately southeast of the NRL BPTF and establish a line of sight area for the satellite tracking devices. The proposed vegetation removal action in both the fifteen acre antenna array site and fifty acre line of sight area involves the use of gasoline powered logging equipment, (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • IN THIS ISSUE Open Meetings Compliance Board Judiciary Regulatory Review and Evaluation Regulations General Notices
    Issue Date: August 12, 2011 Volume 38 • Issue 17 • Pages 989—1042 IN THIS ISSUE Open Meetings Compliance Board Judiciary Regulatory Review and Evaluation Regulations General Notices Pursuant to State Government Article, §7-206, Annotated Code of Maryland, this issue contains all previously unpublished documents required to be published, and filed on or before July 25, 2011, 5 p.m. Pursuant to State Government Article, §7-206, Annotated Code of Maryland, I hereby certify that this issue contains all documents required to be codified as of July 25, 2011. Brian Morris Acting Administrator, Division of State Documents Office of the Secretary of State Information About the Maryland Register and COMAR MARYLAND REGISTER HOW TO RESEARCH REGULATIONS The Maryland Register is an official State publication published An Administrative History at the end of every COMAR chapter gives every other week throughout the year. A cumulative index is information about past changes to regulations. To determine if there have published quarterly. been any subsequent changes, check the ‘‘Cumulative Table of COMAR The Maryland Register is the temporary supplement to the Code of Regulations Adopted, Amended, or Repealed’’ which is found online at Maryland Regulations. Any change to the text of regulations www.dsd.state.md.us/CumulativeIndex.pdf. This table lists the regulations published in COMAR, whether by adoption, amendment, repeal, or in numerical order, by their COMAR number, followed by the citation to emergency action, must first be published in the Register. the Maryland Register in which the change occurred. The Maryland The following information is also published regularly in the Register serves as a temporary supplement to COMAR, and the two Register: publications must always be used together.
    [Show full text]