[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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",[32,75,87],{"_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",6345666,"mediaKeyId","2248701-b6a105917a3f076def9a1fde16f6cd42","parentId",2248701,"title","Planning commission reviews agricultural priority-area analysis as county seeks tools to preserve 60,000 acres","audioSeconds",1826,"startMs",6783880,"endMs",8610045,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2248701-b6a105917a3f076def9a1fde16f6cd42&start=6783&end=8610","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2248701-b6a105917a3f076def9a1fde16f6cd42/thumbnail_6783880.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6345666/St-Marys-County/Maryland/Planning-commission-reviews-agricultural-priority-area-analysis-as-county-seeks-tools-to-preserve-60000-acres","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345666-26d63748f0d31d7d27428877bed12e69/orig.mp4?Expires=1770969785&Signature=l1QnpO32ARO~HBex-Sapf9wJIV92H~zsFcJswgvWhXYZgM3SU5HeQ48BMAL5QWPpNq3Rmzn0oyqqjzlWSELpe6WW7HZtQBzUK9P~uAzKmM4bqBzXBvGM4mv~LdeAjjnv8t~rP3xeAmmWlVZKRB4y808XGmpzZuDgpoz1WkSPLTF-Ls1MAGXmU8ktqmb0aQt5cBr9DP9aCZw9dPcp0oceWi-GGgooMbDgA52hEYDdUR-OG6feJxJrYqy~0WY0JfmCjhnmo17BUQ9wrkizcfPutyDDfvvavf5UKNga7ly65j1XJrdFSmQysLsOEK6HIOEGwDShSm-1jDC4QMJNBePnag__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","St. Mary's County, MD","date","2025-02-07T19:58:39Z","article","St. Mary’s County planning staff on Sept. 8 told the Planning Commission that meeting the county’s goal to preserve 60,000 acres of agricultural land will require new approaches, additional local funding tools and targeted use of existing state and federal programs.

Sue Beeth, environmental planner for the county, and Jeff (staff presenter), summarized an analysis and mapped focus areas in the county. Beeth explained the technical result of staff’s parcel analysis: “If you took all of those lands that are eligible, that you could only preserve and you preserved every acre of them, you would only preserve about 36,000 acres,” she told commissioners, adding that the county’s 2005 Land Preservation, Parks and Recreation Plan already identified primary agricultural focus areas in the northwest and central county.

Why it matters: the 2006 state Agricultural Stewardship Act and planning guidance require a priority preservation component in the comprehensive plan for counties with certified agricultural land-preservation programs; St. Mary’s County’s program was certified in 1995. Staff said existing state funding (MALPF) and county purchase programs alone are unlikely to reach the county’s 60,000‑acre target without additional local strategies.

Staff outlined current counts and gaps: roughly 29,000 acres are already preserved in easements and public land (a figure that includes federal and state holdings), rural legacy areas account for about 3,300 acres in one legacy area and about 2,200 in another, and staff’s eligibility analysis identified about 36,000 acres of privately eligible parcels under current programs. Combining preserved acreage and publicly owned lands leaves a significant shortfall versus the 60,000‑acre goal; staff said that shortfall requires targeted tools and incentives.

Options discussed included: creating voluntary agricultural zoning with transfer/credit inducements (for example, down‑zoning in exchange for TDRs or other credits), establishing an installment‑purchase easement program that spreads payments over multiple years, using fee‑in‑lieu revenue to target smaller or strategically contiguous parcels, and exploring partnerships with land trusts. Staff also recommended focusing local purchase and incentive programs first on the county’s primary agricultural focus areas and the two rural legacy areas to achieve critical mass and contiguous preserved corridors.

Commissioners and staff discussed other implementation issues. Beeth noted that Amish and Mennonite parcels, mapped by the county, comprise numerous mid‑sized farms that typically do not participate in government easement programs and whose preservation may require different, non‑governmental tools. Staff also emphasized the importance of protecting contiguous forest and riparian corridors for habitat (forest interior dwelling species) and suggested combining open‑space protections with agricultural preservation to reduce fragmentation.

Next steps: staff said it will incorporate agricultural priority‑area language and proposed tools into the comprehensive plan draft and bring proposed implementation language back to the commission. Commissioners asked staff to quantify impacts of any proposed change to open‑space requirements inside development districts before adoption and to return with more detailed cost and program options for local purchase/instalment programs.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","9/8/2008 St. Mary's County Planning Commission","oneSentenceSummary","Staff presented an analysis showing the county’s target of preserving 60,000 acres of agricultural land will require new tools and targeted spending; staff recommended concentrating purchase and zoning incentives in established focus areas and pursuing local funding mechanisms in addition to state programs.","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},6345669,"Planning commission approves Bay Ridge Section 5 concept plan for 132-unit multifamily development",3336,3481925,6818869,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2248701-b6a105917a3f076def9a1fde16f6cd42&start=3481&end=6818","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2248701-b6a105917a3f076def9a1fde16f6cd42/thumbnail_3481925.jpg","/articles/6345669/St-Marys-County/Maryland/Planning-commission-approves-Bay-Ridge-Section-5-concept-plan-for-132-unit-multifamily-development","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345669-40e17cda79bc35542a6ce84a3c834588/orig.mp4?Expires=1770969785&Signature=Dtz45SpVMQMdKR-PGD6X~zbsuNMErcE5K3YwJDZjV~xCD61Pjg5X7LN55EarKsAHG-csN-w1S33cuUGNeVmCFxKn~AjSP1bRhMBoT-GHgU8vP2xBgB7ZIm0L0KemjLMk9y1W6gUkqE2I~QWibJi56SombeLpz9CVIYtl04R9kaEAyzaoj~2FAP8QXYrmeJkiaQmX6yWJytpumdPF7K6v3z73CkKKVfDoW0sdW5hPr4WY8iYNbL47tXmZMpXa00UKr78Oxvc7qAyaLUjx3jor-PcMzQe49qPQcYfw7OgUGTU5HJuDbYBdrkDTx4BW3I7hquhxREUFxolhZjLc2n~Jjw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The St. Mary's County Planning Commission on Sept. 8 approved the concept site plan for Bay Ridge Section 5, a revised multifamily project proposing 12 buildings and 132 units within the Lexington Park development district.

David Gary, Department of Land Use and Growth Management staff, summarized the file and agency reviews and told the commission “the original plan proposed 10 buildings with a total of 96 units. On 06/03/2008, a revised plan was submitted… proposing 12 buildings and 132 units.” Gary said the revised plan had been reviewed by technical agencies in the July TEC cycle and that water and sewer service is available for connection to the site; he added that final engineering and adequate public facilities findings will be resolved during subsequent design review and prior to final site-plan approval.

Why it matters: the plan increases the county’s available multifamily housing stock in a development district served by utilities and existing roads. Staff said the project conforms to multi-family design objectives in section 62.4 of the zoning ordinance and that the plan “will provide housing opportunities within Lexington Park Development District.”

Developer representatives on the record included William (Billy) Mahaffey of Mahaffey & Associates and Guy Curley with Bay Ridge, who described the design intent. Curley said the two central buildings would include below-grade parking with driveway access at grade; the perimeter buildings were described as stacked townhomes or multi-level townhouses, and Curley confirmed elevators in the larger multifamily buildings.

Commissioners asked about parking and building materials. Commissioner remarks emphasized durable facade materials; several commissioners encouraged masonry or cement-board accents rather than extensive vinyl. The applicant said landscaping and sidewalk requirements would be addressed in detailed engineering. The school system requested a school-bus stop location; staff noted there will be sidewalks and a roundabout that could accommodate bus movements.

Formal action: a planning commission member moved to approve concept plan CCSP 07-13200019, noting the plan met the objectives of Section 60.5.3 of the zoning ordinance. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote with the commission accepting staff’s conditions that final design, APF (adequate public facilities) findings and engineering be completed before final site-plan sign-off.

Next steps: staff will proceed with final site-plan review, APF determination and engineering review. The commission noted any final approvals will be contingent on Chapter 70 and annual growth policy compliance and that concept-approval expirations and extension rules apply to the approved plan.","The planning commission unanimously approved concept-site plan CCSP 07-13200019, Bay Ridge Section 5, a revised plan proposing 12 buildings and 132 residential units, with staff noting water and sewer are available and final engineering and APF review to follow.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6345674,"Planning commission continues review of St. Mary's Marketplace concept plan after traffic, setback and relocation questions",3405,20605,3425750,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2248701-b6a105917a3f076def9a1fde16f6cd42&start=20&end=3425","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2248701-b6a105917a3f076def9a1fde16f6cd42/thumbnail_20605.jpg","/articles/6345674/St-Marys-County/Maryland/Planning-commission-continues-review-of-St-Marys-Marketplace-concept-plan-after-traffic-setback-and-relocation-questions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345674-1029049be649fe2a50e3da34e7497bd6/orig.mp4?Expires=1770969785&Signature=DjBFNtvoxaXBrZg5NcnNcwSmdq54NMZScfVgez2gegB31mfxr-W0e-se57sOOBk-4tzZuyGV7bA26MiG27TleV342yxHgD4T4IUo2a7wybcnkvdWu0bzRLgC5NCpV0qGr78FkLu3dWnZFMchTVfQT9mc~qRvZB~4eIS-THLKBUYfCuqGtr9XqisDp5KXIZnSAw3zyRmUfLJHfJLDGTVVwlb382re~Lbt~HNwE9zVYXMdtjz7DaxqIBWQ2j-d6RpatzDMqrP9e0r-z7rEU3iZZvgiT-D53ho1BC1~-odIEw~BrA9fJxlG5B4OCE7K1oBs0VCOSdJkka9AL0VnlMfUjA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The St. Mary's County Planning Commission on Sept. 8 continued consideration of a concept site plan for St. Mary's Marketplace, a proposed 121,242-square-foot retail shopping center at the Route 235/Route 4 corridor in Lexington Park.

Staff told the commission the concept plan is designed to meet the county zoning and comprehensive plan standards but requires additional approvals and conditions before final site-plan sign-off. Bob Bowles, Department of Land Use and Growth Management staff, summarized outstanding items: “There are a few outstanding issues, that have to be, addressed before they can get their final approval,” and said final findings on adequate public facilities will be made by the planning director and that the applicant needs right-of-way approvals from the Board of County Commissioners and variances from the Board of Appeals.

Why it matters: commissioners and staff spent most of the meeting on traffic and access questions at one of the county's busiest intersections — Maryland Route 235 and Maryland Route 4 — and on conditions tied to variances that would reduce setback and buffer widths along Route 4. The commission also pressed the developer for specifics on the required right-of-way dedications, the schedule for removal of existing commercial structures and the posted lease for an on-site tenant in the trailer park.

Developer John Norris of Norris and Detter, representing the applicant, said the site is about 14 acres and described planned changes: a single primary entrance on Route 235, consolidation of several existing curb cuts, construction of FDR Boulevard with a signalized intersection at 235, and a perimeter streetscape intended to present a “gateway” appearance to the county. Norris said some land along Route 235 would be deeded to state or county transportation authorities, adding, “The whole title to the strip of land… at no cost.” He also described a lease exception for the tenant Pearl Vision, which he said would remain until the lease expires on about Jan. 1, 2013.

Commissioners repeatedly questioned how the project’s proposed entrances and lane geometry would interact with planned and background traffic (including nearby Wildwood and Oak Crest developments). Planning Commission member Shelby Guazzo asked whether State Highway calculations had factored in Oak Crest and other background projects; Peggy Lewis of the county’s Department of Public Works said the traffic report’s Exhibit 5 included Oak Crest and other background projects and reported that the proposed improvements reduced the morning peak critical lane volume at the FDR/Route 4 location from 1,589 (level E) to 1,442 (level D). Lewis also noted the PM peak remained higher in the study but that the project’s mitigation and roadway dedications were part of the analysis.

Commissioners pressed the applicant on specific design choices: the proximity of a proposed entrance to the 235/4 intersection (about 600 feet from the intersection); whether the Walgreens anchor required a separate access; SMECO’s special truck/substation access needs; and whether the project could be required to move or reconstruct access lanes later if future state interchange geometry changed. Norris said the design team and the applicant have agreed the developer would relocate access or build service lanes if State Highway redesigns the interchange in the future and that the applicant would bear the cost of such changes if needed.

Commissioners also asked about a required variances package. Norris said the applicant seeks relief to move a building setback from 50 feet to 31.6 feet and to reduce a 75-foot buffer yard to 30 feet with a six-foot fence. Norris and the applicant’s landscape consultant presented a planting and fence strategy intended to achieve screening and a “gateway” streetscape; planning staff and commissioners said any variance should require an enforceable planting/maintenance agreement.

The commission also reviewed a relocation plan for an on-site trailer park. Norris said the park contains 19 units, one of which is owner-occupied; Maryland law requires a relocation plan for conversions. He described outreach to the county housing authority and a plan to offer relocation assistance, noting moving an older single-wide mobile home can cost in the $10,000–$12,000 range.

Decision and next steps: after extended discussion and requests for additional documentation from State Highway (a letter from the district engineer), the planning commission voted to continue the concept plan. Planning Commission member Shelby Guazzo moved to continue; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote. The commission asked staff and the applicant to return with clearer documentation of State Highway geometric improvements and a copy of a referenced Markowski letter, as well as detailed exhibits on the FDR Boulevard alignment, traffic geometry, proposed deeded right-of-way, and the more detailed trailer‑park relocation plan. No final approvals or variances were granted at the meeting.

Several items flagged for follow up included: the applicant’s Board of Appeals variances application, Board of County Commissioners right-of-way approvals, a refined traffic study exhibit package for commissioners to review, and a documented maintenance/planting agreement for any reduced buffer yard.

The commission’s continuation preserves the record for future action; staff said final findings on adequate public facilities and the remaining technical reviews will be completed prior to any final site-plan approval.","The St. Mary's County Planning Commission continued consideration of a concept site plan for a 121,242-square-foot retail center called St. Mary’s Marketplace after extended discussion about traffic impacts at the Route 235/Route 4 corridor, requested variances for setbacks and buffers, and a relocation plan for an on‑site trailer park.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission reviews agricultural priority-area analysis as county seeks tools to preserve 60,000 acres

Planning commission approves Bay Ridge Section 5 concept plan for 132-unit multifamily development

Planning commission continues review of St. Mary's Marketplace concept plan after traffic, setback and relocation questions