Editorial: Smart growth is good policy for Wicomico

The Daily Times editorial on Thursday is right on target in asserting that Maryland's "smart growth" policies promoted at the state level have been "mostly a bust ... (with) no discernible effect on development patterns in the state." The major reason given is that "local governments did not want to give up control of land-use policies" to state authorities and "nearly all requests for exceptions" from smart growth restrictions have been granted by local officials.

The editorial writer did not mention that this failure is most acute in Wicomico County -- the largest farm county in the state.

In September, Wicomico became the only county penalized by the Maryland Department of Planning for failure to control its residential growth properly, by taking away the lion's share of agricultural preservation funding to which the county would otherwise have been entitled.

This may cost Wicomico County several million dollars in open-space funding over the next five years.

The University of Maryland study points to the legislature's use of "priority funding areas" as incentive that's not sufficiently robust to cause local authorities to change their behavior.

However, the editorial and the study to which it refers overlook the robust provisions of existing zoning laws. If these laws were enforced or implemented, they would compel compliance with forward-thinking state land use policies.

Wicomico's zoning code incorporates a major objective to implement the "visions" contained in the 1992 Maryland smart growth legislation.

These visions include a mandate to "concentrate development in suitable areas," to "protect sensitive areas," to "direct growth ... in rural areas ... to existing population centers" and "protect resource areas," to assure "adequate public facilities and infrastructure" in areas of growth and to "regard stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay and the land as a universal ethic."

These objectives and visions incorporated into the County Code are not merely well-meaning goals. They are given the force and effect of law by a directive that the code's "statement of intent and visions shall provide the basis of all" zoning decisions made by the county planning staff, zoning commission and board of appeals.

Teeth are put into the law by further requirements that all zoning decisions must "provide for the orderly growth and development of the county in a manner which will protect, conserve and stabilize the value of land, structures and neighborhoods."

The law mandates that zoning decisions have due regard for "adequate provision of public facilities and services." These rulings must "provide open space to protect the ... scenic and natural features of the county," specifically, "preserving farmland and agricultural land base."

Developers have had their way in the past, largely because our zoning authorities have not exercised -- or did not believe they possessed -- the authority to insist on conformity with these standards.

There are signs this is changing, as witnessed by the Zoning Commission's well-reasoned denial earlier this year of rezoning to permit development of pristine forest and farmland in Whiton, in the remote southeast corner of the county.

Smart growth remains the goal not only of environmentalists, but of all citizens.

This goal is achievable if we employ the stick as well as the carrot -- if we enforce, through wise regulation, those wise visions clearly spelled out in the laws we have in place.

Mike Pretl is an attorney who lives in Riverton. He serves on the boards of the Wicomico Environmental Trust and the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, and is volunteer counsel in a number of appeals seeking to enforce county zoning laws.