[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6345776,"mediaKeyId","2248580-eb1a6ee2780d51baa9b3592977a03bbb","parentId",2248580,"title","Planning Commission opens public hearing on amending building-height rules in St. Mary's County zoning schedule","audioSeconds",312,"startMs",1006705,"endMs",1319380,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2248580-eb1a6ee2780d51baa9b3592977a03bbb&start=1006&end=1319","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2248580-eb1a6ee2780d51baa9b3592977a03bbb/thumbnail_1006705.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6345776/St-Marys-County/Maryland/Planning-Commission-opens-public-hearing-on-amending-building-height-rules-in-St-Marys-County-zoning-schedule","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345776-1db25ebefc32df2caa1e4073112a76ea/orig.mp4?Expires=1771182260&Signature=EgpQoipt-77WV2Af54YuqXoEVK77XMFNlzl-qBEc-s6uttwyVh37NoFbgaXPF9Os9QEkUo60tjirPS3X6aION5URbvjSijGqtJ3gJvHMio0VTR~vNZ0mp8bo8BsJc-8AAmW8z7S7dzYZ~IJIfC7NPjd88bGm46D3VNClmaMDraSXMPb62~Kftzo8nPY8zGZHKxCYW2ZGrBTJ3-kXsC3Xz7Rs41qEBhnK4g74bNwT7M4ue0ftuLVYeQjtcYSS4LtKxC5iZIiwUIMdX5n8KOKiN1VX6oB4rc6zztI3v8wWtS1WCU8kd~AOexPWRzYBIZD5XMc4bh7~kQQKQ0SwGjDX9A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","St. Mary's County, MD","date","2025-02-07T19:26:37Z","article","Saint Mary's County Planning Commission — March 12, 2007 — The Planning Commission opened a public hearing March 12 on a zoning text amendment to Chapter 32 (Property Development Regulations), Schedule 32.1 (Development Standards) that would relocate and revise a footnote on maximum building heights, add a site-by-site compliance trigger, require sprinklers for taller buildings, and correct a footnote spelling error.

Planning staff member Michael Canavan told the commission the amendment would move the existing footnote (currently shown in a table row) to individual zone height limits and replace part of the existing language with a renumbered footnote. Under the proposed wording read into the record, “principal structures may be erected to a maximum height of 50 feet when the side and the rear yards are increased 1 foot for each foot of height in excess of the height restrictions of the zone,” and “existing buildings constructed as of the effective date of this amendment are not considered a nonconforming building height.” Canavan also read language (to be renumbered as footnote 12) that retains the existing provision for site-by-site analysis for compliance with Chapter 43 and states that “structures with a building height greater than 45 feet shall install an approved sprinkler system.” He noted communication towers remain regulated under Chapter 51 and are exempt from Schedule 32.1 height limits. Canavan also described a minor spelling correction to footnote 10 (public \"continuous\" sidewalk language).

The amendment drew questions and objections during the hearing. Commissioner Miss Guaiza asked why the amendment would allow 50-foot buildings in zones with current 40-foot maximums. Canavan said staff proposed the 50-foot threshold in part because some existing buildings in county corridors have effectively exceeded 40 feet by using setback-based allowances, and the 50-foot allowance would accommodate similar four-story buildings with pitched roofs without classifying them as nonconforming. Canavan read the county rule for measurement from Chapter 9 to explain how roof types affect measured height.

Members of the public who addressed the commission urged caution. Michael Fry of California, Md., said leaving existing taller buildings off the nonconforming list addressed those properties but that he did not believe a general increase to 50 feet “is going to add anything” to the community. Tammy Seabacher of California, Md., said she did not understand the reason for raising the limit from 40 to 50 and preferred keeping the 40-foot intent. Eric Knight, a resident commenter, urged staff to write a more specific footnote addressing grandfathered buildings if the commission wished to remove the “cloud” of nonconformity for existing structures.

Chair remarks and subsequent discussion clarified the status of existing buildings: the text as proposed would explicitly state that buildings exceeding the current limit as of the amendment’s effective date would not be treated as nonconforming, though no provision would allow them to grow taller than their existing height. Commissioners and staff discussed practical effects including floor-area-ratio (FAR) transfers (TDRs) and whether certain large buildings along the Route 235 corridor had already taken advantage of setback rules to exceed 40 feet.

No ordinance change was adopted at the meeting. After public comment the commission voted to leave the public hearing open for 10 days to receive written responses from the public before further action; the commission did not take a final vote on the text amendment at the March 12 meeting.

The commission will consider public written comments received during the 10-day period and return the amendment language (including the renumbered footnote text and the sidewalk spelling correction) to a future meeting for further deliberation and possible motion to forward to the County Commissioners.

Ending: The public hearing remains open and the Planning Commission asked staff to prepare a revised draft showing the relocated footnote language and the proposed footnote 12 wording for the commission’s next meeting; no final bill or ordinance was approved March 12.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","3/12/2007 St. Mary's County Planning Commission","oneSentenceSummary","Saint Mary's County Planning Commission — March 12, 2007 — The Planning Commission opened a public hearing March 12 on a zoning text amendment to Chapter 32 (Property Development Regulations), Schedule 32.1 (Development Standards) that would relocate and revise a footnote on maximum building heights, add a site-by-site compliance trigger, require sprinklers for taller buildings, and correct a footnote spelling error.","taxTitle","St. Mary's County, Maryland","taxId",51086,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6345769,"Planning Commission moves parts of APF task force recommendations to County Commissioners, ties enrollment increases to annual growth policy",1762,1762320,-1,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2248580-eb1a6ee2780d51baa9b3592977a03bbb&start=1762&end=0","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2248580-eb1a6ee2780d51baa9b3592977a03bbb/thumbnail_1762320.jpg","/articles/6345769/St-Marys-County/Maryland/Planning-Commission-moves-parts-of-APF-task-force-recommendations-to-County-Commissioners-ties-enrollment-increases-to-annual-growth-policy","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345769-c7ac1bf0a5c1c396222aa40dbfd3067f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771182260&Signature=CaCKzYqAszr6xw4Y1hpEKr530638PCHTY60747d8fOTU6JRR76KTGYRUPGPYq0zSbjVVRLlCDphJIjASIc4GJ3G-EGTghKJvGV4scE0iAPEXUn1TcOyCJMuEen~E3Nv5ZCbrrry~RdHfe5nvcGfczIHOSYW30ZzoWMkUlG05XbnYra1~W5ZM3tOBX-zf-drW5bmLddOWNBZZL81RBH-YbAxipjxkmgR5D4XtR6p0SF0OjSFhsFxQ-qttVoEsQ1LfiRSzhuvvUubLJOceSJR0~WuCnS2KSAave0h17hRiczW3xcjRWolwLoDBNoZM2zPf5V9ZiRHPu892niXoTSi57A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Saint Mary's County Planning Commission — March 12, 2007 — The Planning Commission spent the bulk of its March 12 meeting reviewing an Adequate Public Facilities (APF) task force report and the commission’s own recommendations. The discussion covered the task force’s recommended annual growth rate, allocation of dwelling-unit entitlements across growth areas and Rural Preservation Districts (RPDs), proposed unit allocations per project size, a recommended change to the school portion of the impact fee, and whether to restore mitigation as an option in the zoning ordinance.

Phil Shydas (task force/commission member) summarized handouts comparing the task force’s recommendations with the Planning Commission’s preferred numbers. The task force had proposed an annual growth-rate assumption; the Planning Commission expressed concurrence with a 2.25% annual growth-rate assumption in general and with proposed allocation percentages broken into growth areas and RPDs. The commission’s summary of recommended allocations included: 70% of annual allocations to growth areas (town centers, village centers, development/growth districts) and 30% to RPDs; within growth-area allocations, 35% of units targeted for multifamily and 65% for single-family; within the RPD allocation, staff reported a proposed 40% allocation for minor subdivisions and 60% for major subdivisions, although some commissioners suggested a 30/70 split (minor/major) instead.

Shydas and staff outlined the allocation-by-project-size concept: projects under 100 lots could be allocated 25 units per year, projects of 100–200 lots 30 units per year, projects over 200 lots 40 units per year, and multifamily projects could receive up to 100 units per year (figures represent per‑year allocation options tied to the annual growth-rate framework). The commission discussed a one-way reversion rule: unused RPD allocations could be transferred to growth-area allocations, but not vice versa.

On school capacity, the commission noted differing numbers between the task force and Planning Commission recommendations. The commission recorded its position to keep elementary school enrollment at 107% of state-rated capacity and to raise middle and high-school thresholds modestly (the draft discussion referenced 110% for middle schools and 111% for high schools in the work-session materials). Commissioners and school-system staff discussed the risk that raising those thresholds before an annual growth policy is adopted could “open up” seats prematurely; Planning staff and several commissioners said increases in the enrollment percentages should be tied to — and occur commensurate with or following — adoption of an annual growth policy so the county has a clear mechanism to direct where growth will occur.

Planning staff reported that, based on updated finance office input, the Planning Commission voted to recommend raising the school component of the impact fee from $3,000 (task force baseline) to $3,600. The commission also moved to recommend eliminating the impact-fee exemption for family members; staff cited a historical count of exemptions and presented a staff calculation of the fiscal effect by multiplying a per‑exemption fee ($4,500) by that count to illustrate budgetary impact (staff figure cited in the meeting: approximately $1,071,000). Commissioners noted the mitigation concept (reintroducing mitigation as an option in the zoning ordinance) had been discussed in concept by the task force but without firm numbers; the commission agreed to revisit mitigation and other tax/funding items later.

The commission voted to forward recommendations 1 through 3 from the task force (allocation percentages, unit-allocation framework, and related implementation notes) to the County Commissioners and agreed to take up recommendations 4 and 5 at a later time. Phil Shydas moved to make explicit that any elevation of enrollment-percentage thresholds would occur only commensurate with or following adoption of an annual growth policy; the motion carried with an affirmative voice vote. The commission asked staff to draft a resolution capturing the commission’s actions, attach relevant minutes and motion excerpts from the work sessions, and present that resolution to the commission for vote at the next meeting before forwarding the package to the County Commissioners.

Ending: The commission prepared to send the packet of recommendations and supporting materials to the County Commissioners while reserving further decisions on mitigation, transfer taxes and more detailed funding mechanisms for future consideration. Several commissioners said they expect the numbers to be refined further as Board of Education and finance staff provide updated data and as the annual growth policy is developed.","Saint Mary's County Planning Commission — March 12, 2007 — The Planning Commission spent the March 12 work session reviewing the APF task force report and agreed to forward core recommendations on allocations and implementation rules to the County Commissioners, while conditioning any increase in school-enrollment percentages on adoption of an annual growth policy.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning Commission opens public hearing on amending building-height rules in St. Mary's County zoning schedule

Planning Commission moves parts of APF task force recommendations to County Commissioners, ties enrollment increases to annual growth policy