[{"_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",6345665,"mediaKeyId","2248699-539b3867b946ce84aef952b921bffc17","parentId",2248699,"title","Planning commission hears Saint Mary's Crossing PUD; residents press traffic and safety concerns, hearing continued to Oct. 22","audioSeconds",6183,"startMs",8215880,"endMs",14398976,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2248699-539b3867b946ce84aef952b921bffc17&start=8215&end=14398","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2248699-539b3867b946ce84aef952b921bffc17/thumbnail_8215880.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6345665/St-Marys-County/Maryland/Planning-commission-hears-Saint-Marys-Crossing-PUD-residents-press-traffic-and-safety-concerns-hearing-continued-to-Oct-22","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345665-05cb6e7717c48598e666ef4666341893/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143161&Signature=HqBskHay4CCjKsDb21zLahYep~gA5rK9oEtwG3~U~xTsr46t2jk2FiMQY6Aszzq4aHYGC--mPZBkMVt3fZzmGxz0gZ51Ml0Ds0FIi99IFeFMknkjFwF4jHrcPBZVbyDnxLaCC0SmxswG6UCF4YRgqBsqEPY40wVYkL4Nnx-pUoPSdFFoA7XrojGHq17KG6vddh9WJzBj4beNbnJrxyknxDDNNW5iLeGhtxXiI9IudbUBYeAawGc6C5ot95qP1rOi6GWyPGwohSdU9f7aySL3GGWtkZeUxPn1ci-6OuGf85QyKv88fQV2Tj1f7dRnRYBC95yKkmQ-5r3opbz~hGUrYw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","St. Mary's County, MD","date","2025-02-07T19:59:47Z","article","The Saint Mary's County Planning Commission on Aug. 27 heard a lengthy presentation and public comment on Saint Mary's Crossing, a proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) on roughly 249.48 acres west of Indian Bridge Road. The applicant seeks a floating PUD-R rezoning and a Development Rights and Responsibilities Agreement (DRARA) that together would allow a mix of housing types, a school site donation and related infrastructure.

Project in brief

Applicant materials and the project team presented a concept for up to 717 residential units in a mix of product types (two-bedroom townhomes, three-bedroom rear‑garage townhomes, villa-style duplexes and larger detached ‘‘manor’’ homes). The plan shows two development phases, a donated school parcel described in materials as approximately 26 acres (applicant materials also list an alternate 28‑acre figure that includes a utility easement area), an on-site well and water tower intended to reach the Patapsco/Tapasco aquifer, internal roundabout intersections, a community building and pool, and a proposed crossing of an existing dam/road at a large pond in the Saint Marys River watershed.

Staff, technical and agency points

Bob Boles of the county planning staff introduced the rezoning and DRARA hearings and set out required findings for a PUD under the zoning ordinance. Engineer John Norris (NG & O Engineering) described environmental constraints, a proposed development envelope that preserves roughly 44% of the site in open/buffer areas (or about 56% if the school parcel is included as open land), and a circulation hierarchy of public and private streets. He said staff and the applicant had sought agency input on the pond/dam crossing and that a Corps/MDE wetlands and dam-safety review would be required for any permanent reconfiguration of the dam/road.

Architect Daniel Ball presented conceptual building elevations and unit footprints spanning modest townhomes (~1,250–1,400 sq ft) to detached manor units (~2,500–3,000 sq ft); the applicant said streetscape consistency and a mix of product types were deliberate design objectives.

Traffic and public works

A traffic-impact study prepared for the full buildout (717 units plus a 650‑student elementary school assumption) estimated roughly 500 PM peak-hour trips and about 400 AM peak-hour trips attributable to the project; the study included assumed traffic from other planned nearby developments. The study found some intersections with existing failing service levels (Route 4 at Wildwood Parkway) and concluded Wildwood Parkway/Maryland Route 4 meets signal warrants and should be signalized; the State Highway Administration had indicated conditional concurrence for certain entrance improvements for the project's first 350 units but final approvals would follow planning approvals.

Department of Public Works staff advised the commission that Route 4 will require future capacity upgrades and provided a preliminary range of developer-impact cost estimates that vary widely depending on the scope analyzed; staff presented a per-unit fee-in-lieu range roughly between $2,000 and $8,000 per dwelling unit for Route 4 improvements depending on assumptions and the mitigation area used for calculation. Public Works also raised concern about the project's proximity to the county landfill expansion area and requested that disclosure be provided to purchasers; the county noted buffers required under landfill regulations (500‑foot vegetated buffer; 1,500‑foot planning considerations).

Board of Education and school-site issues

Representatives for the Board of Education confirmed ongoing negotiations with the applicant on the donated school parcel and asked that a staff-recommended condition be clarified: the Board asked that if the private roadway connecting the eastern portion of the property to Old Saint Andrews Church Road is improved to public standards prior to certain phases, the Johnson Pond Lane access be closed and reverted so the Board receives the full intended width for the school parcel. The Board said the original agreement anticipated the parcel might support either an elementary or a middle school; the Board requested the design keep that flexibility if the Johnson Pond Lane easement reverts prior to school construction.

Public testimony

More than a dozen nearby residents testified. The comments concentrated on traffic safety at the existing Saint Andrews Lane / Maryland Route 4 intersection, sight-distance limitations on the curve near Saint Andrews Church, the prospect of thousands of new daily vehicle trips, concerns about the dam/pond crossing and MDE permits, and environmental protections for the Saint Marys River watershed and species (including DNR comments on the eastern narrow-mouthed toad habitat cited by residents). Several residents asked the commission to require signalization and turn-lane work before additional approvals or home sales, and to require stronger guarantees for the second access.

Timing and procedural outcome

After presentations and public testimony the Planning Commission voted to continue both the PUD rezoning and the developer's rights and responsibilities (DRARA) hearings to Oct. 22, 2007, and left the record open for additional written submissions in the interim. Commissioners and staff indicated significant outstanding technical issues (traffic mitigation detail, pond/dam permitting, stormwater management, landfill adjacency/disclosures, school-site conveyance details and specific wording of DRARA commitments) that would be addressed in follow-up reports and materials prior to the commission's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.

Why this matters

If approved, the PUD would add hundreds of housing units and a donated school site along a major county corridor, with near‑term consequences for traffic, stormwater management, watershed health and county capital needs. Public Works flagged the project's contribution to capacity needs on Maryland Route 4; Board of Education and residents flagged school access and safety questions; environmental agencies will need to review dam and wetlands permits for any proposed pond/dam modification.

Next steps

The hearings were continued to Oct. 22, 2007; the applicant and staff will file technical revisions, and the commission expects formal mitigation commitments and clearer drafter language for the DRARA before a final recommendation. Written comments submitted before the continuation date will form part of the official hearing record.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","8/27/2007 St. Mary's County Planning Commission","oneSentenceSummary","The Planning Commission reviewed a proposed 249.48‑acre Planned Unit Development called Saint Mary's Crossing and heard public testimony focused on traffic, safety and environmental concerns; the commission continued both the PUD rezoning and the developer's rights and responsibilities hearing to Oct. 22, 2007.","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},6345672,"Planning commission opens public hearing on draft countywide water and sewer plan; record left open for two weeks",6123,27244,6151114,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2248699-539b3867b946ce84aef952b921bffc17&start=27&end=6151","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2248699-539b3867b946ce84aef952b921bffc17/thumbnail_27244.jpg","/articles/6345672/St-Marys-County/Maryland/Planning-commission-opens-public-hearing-on-draft-countywide-water-and-sewer-plan-record-left-open-for-two-weeks","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345672-45944e637d2cc8898dddb58f25ca17b6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143161&Signature=Xmwb5lpG8f-AvLpoHQd~uUjqqsYovh3nFUoCFqzthUQoXRkcwQp6ixXQ2c0LvPFyyAZaUwsQAmIKeavSMH4MWwXiArP-9x0KiSIKc~5ZH6gxnhUDo8E57-RhyOU0mZg7hNamjpB51iKxrKYSzsNB7XIIcz7c4oEqxp~kAt6I5hGl6EJgcYClJu2ribvSJj2C9zrGMz~vClG81wXlLaGS7nbNqa~AfssLXarg8flnvey4isABZRi1-rRlHqKJGrFyaFzq4yMmKn~x6538b8ay~vDWZnmCc4nGZuXR9Kx2D1EfwJZ6O4jGzVss5Gu7id1l17e0cn8s1NC5rtVlNhjp4Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Saint Mary's County Planning Commission on Aug. 27 opened a public hearing on a proposed revision to the county Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan, a document staff says consolidates piecemeal amendments and updates the service-area maps used to guide where public water and sewer may be extended.

Planning Department staff described the draft July 2007 CWSP as an effort to align the water/sewer categories with the county's 1999 comprehensive land-use plan and subsequent rezoning. Staff said the draft would convert some parcels west and north of Leonardtown (previously categorized S6/W6, meaning service in six to ten years) to NPS (no planned service) because those parcels were removed from the Leonardtown development district and rezoned to rural categories. The draft also incorporates the Metropolitan Commission's capital-improvement budget (table 4.5) and makes procedural clarifications about how CWSP category changes relate to the zoning ordinance and to recent state law allowing delegated administrative hearings for some changes.

The nut graf: the CWSP determines where public water and sewer infrastructure is expected and therefore where growth and higher-density development are feasible. The draft before the commission would reduce planned service in several environmentally sensitive watersheds and update the county maps and procedures; it will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners and then to the Maryland Department of the Environment for final approval.

Staff presentation and technical context

Department of Land Use and Growth Management staff (identified in the meeting as \"Mr. Jackman\") told the commission that Maryland law in the Environment Article of the Annotated Code requires jurisdictions to prepare and periodically review a CWSP and said the county's current plan dated from 1993 with piecemeal updates since. Jackman and other staff traced the sequence: the 1999 comprehensive plan changed development district boundaries, a rezoning in 2002 implemented much of that vision, and a draft CWSP work that began in 2003 was delayed while the county completed a Lexington Park master plan (adopted 2005) and its rezoning (2006). Jackman said a multi‑agency committee — the county planning department, the county health department, the Metropolitan Commission (Metcom) and Leonardtown staff — produced the current draft.

The draft proposes (among other changes) to reclassify areas in the McIntosh Run watershed and land west of Indian Bridge Road from S6/W6 to NPS, reflecting the county's decision to remove those areas from development-district expectations. Jackman also noted the draft reconciles terminology between the CWSP and the zoning ordinance and responds to state-level changes allowing delegated hearings in some cases (the draft references a state provision staff cited as permitting delegation).

Public testimony and owner concerns

More than a dozen residents and property owners spoke. Cheney Enterprises (a gravel/mining operator) told commissioners it had long-term interests in a 425-acre parcel near the site and asked staff to reconsider removing that parcel from planned service; the company's representative said the parcel is not currently economically mined and has been considered for future adaptive reuse, reclamation and residential development. The Cecil family, owners of Cecil Mill and adjacent historic property on Indian Bridge Road, asked the commission to leave their parcel classified as S6/W6 rather than move it to NPS, arguing that part of the parcel already sits adjacent to sewer and water and that proposed road improvements (a possible PEG Road extension) could change access and need for service. Several homeowners along Indian Bridge Road and in small subdivisions such as Maple Run urged the commission not to remove their neighborhoods from planned service, saying private septic fields have failed or are marginal and that residents rely on the prospect of future public water and sewer.

Metropolitan Commission and health department input

A Metcom representative (identified in the meeting as \"Steve\") told the commission Metcom had recently updated its capital-improvement budget and formally asked staff to replace the plan's table 4.5 with Metcom’s updated CIP because that budget provides the basis for metcom's capital improvement charges and for funding decisions. Metcom staff said the commission will implement a uniform system improvement charge and capital contribution charge, to replace prior special assessment districts starting Oct. 1 (house bill referenced in testimony was cited as the enabling law). Metcom also said it will review and update the CIP annually.

County Health Department staff (identified in the meeting as \"Mr. King\") explained how areas could be recategorized if demonstrated health problems emerge: the plan can be amended to allow service where septic failures are widespread and not repairable on-site, and such problem areas can be moved to an active service category to allow public sewer extension. King said the CWSP's S6/W6 designation means the county anticipates service within the next six to ten years; removing that designation to NPS signals no anticipated extension to facilitate new growth, although the county can later reclassify an area if public-health conditions require it.

Process, outreach and next steps

Staff said the draft and maps were advertised in local newspapers and posted at county offices, libraries and the county website; staff mailed roughly 331 courtesy letters to owners of properties included in areas proposed for category changes. Jackman noted the draft was intentionally wide-ranging and that changes and “warts” were expected to be resolved through the public hearing process.

The commission accepted oral testimony and then voted to leave the public record open for written comments for 14 days; staff said written material and exhibits submitted in that period will be accepted and become part of the record to be considered in the commission's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.

Why this matters

The CWSP maps determine where public infrastructure is planned and, therefore, where growth of housing and commercial development is practical and cost-justified. Landowners and residents told the commission the proposed reclassifications would remove long-held development expectations and could affect property values and repair options for failing septic systems. Staff emphasized the plan does not permanently remove the county's ability to respond to health emergencies and that the process will proceed through the county commissioners and the Maryland Department of the Environment for final approval.

What's next

The public record remains open for 14 days for written testimony; the planning commission will consider written submissions and public testimony in producing a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, which will hold its own hearing before forwarding the plan to the Maryland Department of the Environment.

Ending note: key figures and where to read the draft

Staff said the draft includes an updated table (4.5) reflecting Metcom's CIP and that Metcom has asked the county to incorporate Metcom’s most recent CIP before the document advances. The draft and the service-area maps are posted on the county website at the Metropolitan Commission site (metcom.org) and are available at the county planning office and public libraries for review.","The Saint Mary's County Planning Commission opened a public hearing Aug. 27 on a proposed July 2007 revision to the county Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan, which would update service-area maps and procedures and remove certain watershed parcels from planned public water and sewer service.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission hears Saint Mary's Crossing PUD; residents press traffic and safety concerns, hearing continued to Oct. 22

Planning commission opens public hearing on draft countywide water and sewer plan; record left open for two weeks