[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-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",[32,75,87,99],{"_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",6345629,"mediaKeyId","2248732-2db16a8967fbd75e28316d43dfc72358","parentId",2248732,"title","County planners outline capital-improvement priorities and draft water-resources element ahead of October deadline","audioSeconds",1714,"startMs",9196000,"endMs",10910000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2248732-2db16a8967fbd75e28316d43dfc72358&start=9196&end=10910","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2248732-2db16a8967fbd75e28316d43dfc72358/thumbnail_9196000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6345629/St-Marys-County/Maryland/County-planners-outline-capital-improvement-priorities-and-draft-water-resources-element-ahead-of-October-deadline","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345629-bc8fd329856132dcfe0805d61e6521a0/orig.mp4?Expires=1770436085&Signature=ioM1wSt4Pzczxn8THDDCI1CExd~9q5Nyfw5J6HDiSASw0ST8xgzk81snBYOM~2CLcq2pVU5jNpvUY7~WrAog0hvD3JTTdbLqnQtjJ3fT9~GgSx6-Oxa-hWOaN97NduXMHKpX6f7u-P-FxpIdJ1I2XYSKP8czM8aWMKV-DzGUHIqLm3adxeESDR2D6vKh5N6i~zRHz7jre4gQiLOhwXDkjQ3Q1JPl6wmGX7dGaZVX6yn3dTiEKJaxX3VVATk9Ib7H9x6zaAt5BJc2mDuw0~PPTymovzm34gEkFq6QjB717mmO3P9C8oJlV4ogQYOy5-2LjFJ2my3obuPXrBH6BYwJ0A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","St. Mary's County, MD","date","2025-02-07T20:08:59Z","article","Planning staff updated the commission Oct. 27 on two non-legislative items: the county’s capital-improvement program (CIP) development schedule and progress on the state-mandated water-resources element of the comprehensive plan.

Budget and capital program: Elaine Kramer reported the county’s approved FY2009 capital plan remains broadly similar to the recommended plan presented earlier in the year. Significant adjustments included a re-scoped emergency-shelter project and ongoing refinements to the adult detention center program. Commissioners asked about the projected $24–25 million cost tied to a minimum-security detention facility and about program funding assumptions; Kramer said the county monitors debt-capacity and schedules bond sales when appropriate. Kramer also noted that land-acquisition programs — including agricultural-land preservation and parks — make up a substantial portion of the six-year capital plan and that state grant availability will affect the county’s ability to buy parkland.

Water-resources element and state deadline: Jackman (planning staff) and Sue (GIS analyst/staff) briefed the commission on progress drafting the water-resources element required by recent state law. The element must inventory and project water supply, wastewater and stormwater needs and be submitted by Oct. 1 of the following year so the Maryland Department of the Environment can review it. Staff said they are layering county data into the state’s modeling tools, and drawing on related work underway: a facilities plan for the Marlay-Taylor wastewater treatment plant, TMDL/tributary strategy work, stormwater-permit planning, and an updated impervious-surface/forestry GIS layer. Staff said a first draft of the element should be ready for review in November and emphasized the work depends on data from multiple ongoing studies.

Commissioner questions focused on wastewater options for meeting new state discharge limits and whether the county will rely on land-application (spray irrigation) for future Marlay-Taylor expansions. Staff said the facilities plan will identify how capacity and effluent-quality targets can be achieved and that land-application is among the technical options under review. Staff also highlighted the county’s need to identify potential school and park sites and said work will continue through the fall for a December submission to the commissioners.

Ending: Staff will circulate a first draft water-resources element to the commission in November; the CIP group will continue finalizing project lists and funding assumptions for the commissioners’ review later in the budget cycle.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","10/27/2008 St. Mary's County Planning Commission","oneSentenceSummary","Staff briefed the Planning Commission on the FY2010 capital-improvement program priorities and on work to complete a legally required water-resources element of the comprehensive plan by Oct. 1 next year; commissioners asked questions about jail costs, park acquisitions and wastewater treatment capacity.","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},6345634,"Planning commission approves subdivisions, farm preservation recommendation and exception requests; summary of votes",2485,6323000,8808000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2248732-2db16a8967fbd75e28316d43dfc72358&start=6323&end=8808","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2248732-2db16a8967fbd75e28316d43dfc72358/thumbnail_6323000.jpg","/articles/6345634/St-Marys-County/Maryland/Planning-commission-approves-subdivisions-farm-preservation-recommendation-and-exception-requests-summary-of-votes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345634-d0877e018a17ae6d0dcba45390475948/orig.mp4?Expires=1770436085&Signature=MLS-wTWfv9An-vT6~3BgNNmNwMUlsl7ROvE0SJoq2s9sOD8-13slRzpqT071OvBVQhQMi-44P~98edXFWxK0cGpWPi7bT7s8Ez87EFdUMZLLl3yEowuBIX1m3Yun~tOLJaa-EDCw03rMAF~1U4ZybVpGulgCSs~uur~oJj2D8gvjQZaTRLcTB7q5u2kXMKESoe8QZkxQKPU~s2pFoQ7tZ7eSo6EmPrDNW8MfWij57JcIj0sZkGgsRh~8WGC8F2SKVjTI05ghHERyJYnjnT3CJvX5fTLXNdSm9VUs~ZEgcAYJXBO6Xi5Bl7pHKKtzSpLWktLAoX71INLWPVzBolp28Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The St. Mary’s County Planning Commission took a series of formal actions Oct. 27, approving several subdivision preliminary plans, recommending one agricultural-preservation district to the Board of County Commissioners, and granting an exception to a prior intra-family transfer restriction so a waterfront parcel may be sold to a non-family buyer.

Votes at a glance

- Bell Arbor (Major Subdivision 06-12000008, Pembroke Run) — Preliminary approval of phase 1 for 30 lots; finding of adequate public facilities granted for the phase; applicant must return for subsequent phases (motion by Mr. Chase, seconded by Mr. Evans; approved).

- Essex Woods Section 4 (Major Subdivision 07-12000020) — Preliminary approval for 76 lots overall with phase 1 approved for 24 lots; applicant must return for school-seat findings for following phases (motion by Mr. Thompson, seconded by Mr. Evans; approved).

- Sunset Ridge Manor (Major Subdivision 05-12000017) — Preliminary approval for 23 single-family lots (motion by Mr. Evans, seconded by Mr. Thompson; approved).

- Estates of Joy Chapel (Major Subdivision 04-12000023) — Preliminary approval for remaining lots (motion by Mr. Chase, seconded by Mr. Evans; approved).

- Friendly Farm (Exception request 08140010) — The commission recommended granting an exception under section 41.6.0.4(a)(3–4) to allow a parcel that had been transferred under intra-family provisions in 1991 to be conveyed to a person other than a family member because the current owner demonstrated changed circumstances; motion by Miss Quasler, seconded by Mr. Thompson; approved.

- Vallenningham (Vaniningham) Farms ALPD (ALPD 08-15000002) — The commission recommended the Board of County Commissioners establish an Agricultural Land Preservation District for Laningham Farms LLC; motion by Mr. Thompson, seconded by Miss Squazo; approved.

Procedural motions

- The commission closed the public hearing on the wind-energy text amendment and left the record open for additional written comment for a short period (motion carried).

Context and staff findings: Planning staff reported that the subdivision approvals met the county’s subdivision and zoning standards, met clustering and open-space requirements, and — in each case — the commission’s approvals were contingent on the applicants returning for school-seat adequacy findings for later phases, consistent with the county’s annual growth policy.

Notable details from record

- Bell Arbor: Staff noted the project would meet AGP phasing requirements and that traffic mitigation fees for the Willows Road/Route 5 intersection will be collected at the appropriate time.

- Essex Woods: The plan provides pedestrian and internal interparcel connections; staff noted open-space requirements will be satisfied with common areas managed by homeowners association documents approved by the county attorney.

- Friendly Farm: The parcel at issue (Lot 3, roughly 3.56 acres after tidal acreage adjustments) had been created by a bona fide intra-family transfer in 1991; the current owner demonstrated a lack of family successors able or willing to assume waterfront ownership obligations, and staff recommended the commission approve an exception allowing sale to a non-family buyer.

What to watch: Each subdivision is approved preliminarily with conditions tied to school-seat findings and annual growth-policy compliance; applicants must return for findings for subsequent phases before additional lots may be released for building permits. The Board of County Commissioners will act on ALPD and text amendments following the commission’s recommendations.

Ending: The commission’s approvals clear a number of long-pending projects that had been held in the queue awaiting school-seat allocations while advancing one agricultural-preservation application and a narrow exception for a long-held intra-family parcel.","At its Oct. 27 meeting the Planning Commission granted multiple preliminary approvals for subdivisions, recommended an agricultural land-preservation district, and approved an exception to an intra-family transfer for a waterfront parcel. The commission also approved procedural motions to close hearings and leave records open where noted.",{"_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},6345638,"Planning commission approves adding personal storage and warehousing uses in Office Business Park zone",2549,3071000,5620000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2248732-2db16a8967fbd75e28316d43dfc72358&start=3071&end=5620","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2248732-2db16a8967fbd75e28316d43dfc72358/thumbnail_3071000.jpg","/articles/6345638/St-Marys-County/Maryland/Planning-commission-approves-adding-personal-storage-and-warehousing-uses-in-Office-Business-Park-zone","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345638-a468ac20451ce05c39565cfb6b114acc/orig.mp4?Expires=1770436085&Signature=GAT~B3HZDLqmvIT5nRpQ1521Jjdd0RvYhHTkeRN1S2r8r~MVsT3ar9v6tPIQsDxjjbRQO64Kv1veqI-g~-iuCTu28CjFq0AbKOVdg3vaLWOhXBNq1XclOBVAtaVviQ~ddkLg0X5wEcM5sRrhHrc9x4~03FRHGR-V7ZzyPtlT8udrxJsiWNVu5rm~Hdp65vQwcWMNlLRcWcQ7kFFKRd-dHDn9HMydjYYwMVd376Ag3PGtw6-Z~9NiYFE2InC46kMb56syaAZ5Ab9OfsrxOpA-J83ctFQ8XdHgS7jkqSWGUHzrnmX~F98yFIlLlG~yV~IAws8lnpdl7djJPOPiPvRADw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The St. Mary’s County Planning Commission voted Oct. 27 to add use number 64 (personal storage) and use number 78 (warehousing and storage) to the Office Business Park (OBP) zoning designation.

Philip Shire of the Department of Land Use and Growth Management told the commission the amendment is intended to align the OBP zone’s allowed uses with the county comprehensive plan goal of providing land for offices, labs and warehouses. He said roughly two-thirds of the county’s OBP acreage lies in the Lexington Park Development District and that much of the OBP area falls within the Navy’s Accident Potential Zone, where low-occupancy uses are preferable.

Commissioners asked whether the definition of warehousing would allow retail showrooms. Staff and Mr. Shire said the intent is storage and distribution in enclosed buildings and that the county could add general standards (in Chapter 51) to prohibit major retail operations in OBP and to make clearly incidental sales (for example, boxes and packing supplies at a self-storage facility) permissible as accessory activities.

Shire told the commission he had received no public comment opposing the amendment and said Navy staff had raised no objection to the proposed use in the APZ after review. After discussion the commission approved a motion to accept the amendments as proposed and authorized the chairman to sign a resolution forwarding the text amendment to the Board of County Commissioners.

Why this matters: The change lets developers lawfully propose enclosed storage and warehousing in OBP zones subject to the county’s site and project-review (TEC) process and any Chapter 51 general standards adopted later. The decision emphasizes the county’s interest in aligning zoning with both the comprehensive plan’s employment-parks objective and the Navy’s safety guidance for adjacent lands.

Next steps: Staff will add or refine general standards in Chapter 51 that limit retail and clarify performance and screening standards for warehousing and personal storage.","After a staff presentation and limited questions, the Planning Commission approved a zoning text amendment to allow personal storage and warehousing in the Office Business Park (OBP) zone, with the expectation that general standards will be set in Chapter 51 to prevent large retail uses.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6345643,"Planning commission backs moving forward on small wind energy zoning amid concerns about buffers and critical-area variances",4073,467000,4540000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2248732-2db16a8967fbd75e28316d43dfc72358&start=467&end=4540","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2248732-2db16a8967fbd75e28316d43dfc72358/thumbnail_467000.jpg","/articles/6345643/St-Marys-County/Maryland/Planning-commission-backs-moving-forward-on-small-wind-energy-zoning-amid-concerns-about-buffers-and-critical-area-variances","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345643-7e8662fa30dd520b60c692ec7fa8e677/orig.mp4?Expires=1770436085&Signature=UUkjuMzbYdzep2C6lkKdTU2heZfRgqQhSw4qxBA52~xKfcfhLZ4-Hn0pvYRNT5snelkMhggkBEgdWeRyrxOIcqeae3SlWJeT9x2St4ZNlQxrChSqLqYjes7KMKzZcgo4R8-3sgmvA~bPOCCHDU8qrLM8w6nCNqp1gdacstlD691IRGijpIGtJV4O4eI9Sub~bW9vhhmd71IS54~coPhZs5mob6U~PVU8-ePE8xWw7-NSyCWZpW8kJchRetDVJalS-3dF7JpD1DWQS7q3uKYbtQJlC-z1N4189ImVN4hiHKoPEUL5eG1L~-~GjNZK8zrpjX0EHUM8474JMvyl8eVhDg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The St. Mary’s County Planning Commission voted Oct. 27 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners support alternative energy, specifically small wind energy systems and solar installations, while continuing work on detailed ordinance standards and coordination with the Critical Area Commission.

The vote followed a public hearing and lengthy discussion that included a staff overview, technical questions about tower heights and buffers, and presentations from residents and renewable-energy vendors who said modern small-turbine systems can provide significant household energy production.

The commission’s recommendation is not the final zoning change. Planning staff presented draft language to add “small wind energy system” as a use in the county’s zoning ordinance and asked for guidance on standards such as maximum height, required setbacks, abandonment clauses and whether towers should be allowed inside critical-area buffers. Shelly (staff) told the commission that staff had consulted the Maryland Energy Administration’s model ordinance and examples from Dorchester, Carroll and Kent counties and had not changed the originally proposed maximum heights. She also said the Board of County Commissioners planned a public hearing on Nov. 3.

Local resident Richard Johnson, who said he has conducted multiple wind studies on his property and plans a grid-tied Jacobs 20-kilowatt system, told the commission his “average conservative wind speed was 10 miles per hour” and that at that speed his system would produce about 19,700 kilowatt-hours a year, “conservatively” covering a substantial share of his household use. Johnson also said his proposed 100-foot hub height plus 15-foot blades would yield an overall height near 115 feet.

Those public remarks prompted questions from commissioners about noise, aircraft safety, visual impacts, guy-wire setbacks and whether towers could carry antennas for commercial use. Commissioners and staff repeatedly raised the county’s critical-area rules: towers proposed inside the 200-foot critical-area buffer would likely require a variance from the Critical Area Commission or the local variance process because the Critical Area Program generally limits new development within buffers.

Commissioners pressed for limits on where towers would be allowed and for stronger draft provisions on abandonment or disuse, setbacks measured from total height (including blade sweep), and minimum parcel size. One commissioner said she would prefer a minimum parcel size of one acre and asked that towers not be allowed in development districts or town-centers during the initial adoption phase. Another commissioner suggested approving a pilot or demonstration exception for individual sites rather than opening the entire county at once.

After public comment and internal discussion, Commissioner Murrell Levin moved that the commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the county support alternative-energy sources, including wind turbines and solar energy; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Chase and carried by voice vote.

The commission also voted to close the public hearing and leave the record open for additional written comment for a short period. Staff was directed to schedule a targeted work session so the commission can refine specific ordinance language—setbacks, allowed zones, minimum lot sizes, abandonment clauses and any limits on antennas or commercial collocation—before returning a finalized text amendment to the county commissioners.

What this means locally: The commission signaled political support for household-scale wind and other renewables while insisting on technical rules to limit visual impacts, safety risks and conflicts with the Critical Area Program. The county will not yet have a finished ordinance; staff and commissioners will continue to draft detailed standards and coordinate with state agencies before the Board of County Commissioners makes a final decision.

Sources and next steps: The Board of County Commissioners had a public hearing scheduled Nov. 3 on the draft text amendment. Planning staff suggested a workshop to draft specific standards and said they had shared Saint Mary’s draft language with other Maryland counties seeking guidance.

Ending: The commission’s action moved the county from discussion to an explicit recommendation of support for alternative-energy installations, but it left several technical and policy questions to be resolved in subsequent drafts and discussions with state agencies.","After extended public comment and technical questions, the St. Mary’s County Planning Commission voted to recommend the Board of County Commissioners support small-scale wind and other alternative-energy installations while continuing to work on design standards, setbacks and critical-area conflicts.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

County planners outline capital-improvement priorities and draft water-resources element ahead of October deadline

Planning commission approves subdivisions, farm preservation recommendation and exception requests; summary of votes

Planning commission approves adding personal storage and warehousing uses in Office Business Park zone

Planning commission backs moving forward on small wind energy zoning amid concerns about buffers and critical-area variances