More News

Council to consider exemptions for churches in Ag area

Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2005

The county Planning Board has recommended a sewer policy change that cuts by half the amount of hard surface area permitted in developments in the Agricultural Reserve.

Advocates of protecting the reserve say the recommendation does not go far enough and those seeking reserve development say it’s too restrictive.

The current standard allows 30 percent of a property to be impervious surface, or hard surface area that limits the infiltration of water into the soil.

The board voted Thursday to recommend to the County Council that the percentage be lowered to 15 percent for all new developments.

The sewer question has become more controversial as the issue of Private Institutional Facilities (PIFs) locating in the reserve has been raised.

In several cases, religious non-profits have sought to build so-called megachurches in the reserve and agricultural preservationists have rallied against the projects.

The board recommendation grandfathers PIFs already in the sewer application process under the current 30 percent standard.

The council will make the decision on the zoning text amendment and changes to the county sewer plan in December.

In addition to lowering the impervious surface cap, the Planning Board also removed language that would have allowed agricultural uses to be exempt from the cap.

‘‘They have talked the talk, but their actions were not supportive of the ag reserve,” said Jane Evans, president of Citizens to Preserve the Reserve. ‘‘They passed the 15 percent cap; however, they took away the line that said agriculture would be exempt.”

Evans has said that many citizens interested in protecting agricultural reserve were also disappointed with the suggestion of a 15 percent impervious cap.

‘‘Fifteen percent is a big number,” Evans said. ‘‘We thought this should have been eight. You need to look at storm and water quality. A better optimum to ensure good water quality is 8 percent.”

The land is not just sitting there waiting to be developed, she said.

‘‘The county has to decide if it will stand up and preserve that land or cave in to developers,” she said.

She would also like to make it clear that members of the agricultural community are not against the arrival of all churches to the Agricultural Reserve. Evans’ group would simply like the new churches to match the scope and scale of the area. She also points out that there are already churches in the area.

Todd Heishman, ministry and operations pastor for Derwood Bible Church, which has applied to build a large-scale facility on reserve land in Laytonsville, isn’t happy with the board’s recommendation either. He said a 15 percent cap will hinder churches.

‘‘We feel the impact of these changes would undermine the long-term viability of faith communities in Montgomery County by impairing ... the ability of houses of worship to modernize, expand, upgrade or even relocate their facilities as the need arises,” he said during the Thursday hearing.

Guy Williams, pastor of Parker Memorial Bible Church, located in Burtonsville, said churches will be hurt by a 15 percent cap because many can’t afford to buy larger pieces of land to increase the amount of impervious space they can use.

‘‘When those that made the decision 25 years ago to set aside one third of county’s land for ag zone, they did not anticipate that the county would grow to the extent that it has with regards to the population that we have,” Williams testified. ‘‘The fact is there is not a lot of land for churches.”

Williams has suggested that the discussion on the impervious cap should begin at 75 percent.

He is encouraged by the recommendation that PIFs that have applied for sewage should be grandfathered at the current impervious cap standards.

He believes that this is an issue of religion. He is the president of the Voices of Interfaith Congregations Emerging in Solidarity, a coalition of 300 interfaith and multicultural congregations that also opposes the 15 percent impervious surface cap.

‘‘The proposed legislation is in fact targeted at the religious community,” Williams said. ‘‘We call it PIFs, but all the discussion centers around churches and their impact in designated areas.”