[{"_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",6345626,"mediaKeyId","2248733-22e5c07e91eb6763ff32f2176cb958aa","parentId",2248733,"title","Planning Commission continues Saint Mary's Crossing PUD and DRA after developer and public debate over density, traffic and access","audioSeconds",7311,"startMs",6669000,"endMs",13980000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2248733-22e5c07e91eb6763ff32f2176cb958aa&start=6669&end=13980","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2248733-22e5c07e91eb6763ff32f2176cb958aa/thumbnail_6669000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6345626/St-Marys-County/Maryland/Planning-Commission-continues-Saint-Marys-Crossing-PUD-and-DRA-after-developer-and-public-debate-over-density-traffic-and-access","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345626-99e336cc20c9ee6caa4ea73aed0097db/orig.mp4?Expires=1775365609&Signature=bkfQ2qyeL0jS7mljlEDzPNu3GoAYZX3jd5A9sWkxIcXAe7FYyO4z5oHuHp3yMG~ONqDwooo5lJNnEtmTB6m49-dNgfcceg-6CPcXoLryg8ThIiKwpnMDarWcIX6pbiNZ9xxN-TV9a0bwgg0Zn~wsfv9IOGJVAjRhOcRTlxSlziUUyxZ2OgV3OWlYsh5VCaFR3faF6ccXBNiEQLwzijYcDLXA4auMZ9JwYNS5jSTBcC6WVX9x1H3JDufkhJdDxYJakWFymlbYfHC4WYTjXs-Z4mAyeCHsHIaeDD7~AqdFsHWbcmNzFfoJgPa1WjHsbpD9b0J6oyDUciErZARR3k6~4g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","St. Mary's County, MD","date","2025-02-07T20:08:40Z","article","The Planning Commission continued, by unanimous vote, its review of the Saint Mary's Crossing planned unit development (PUD) and the related development rights and responsibilities agreement (DRA) after extended presentations by the applicant and extensive public comment about traffic, access and other impacts.

What the developer proposed

John Norris (NG&O Engineering) and project representatives told the commission the applicant revised the plan since the October hearing to add workforce housing and to increase total dwelling units from 717 to 868. The update introduced a “Heritage Series” of smaller two-bedroom units the developer says can be offered as rental or sale units and that can help meet workforce housing objectives; the developer said the plan would preserve approximately 57% of the 249-acre project as open space while concentrating the development envelope to about 107 acres.

The developer also described project infrastructure commitments: construction of public water and sewer extensions to serve the project and the donated 26-acre school site, stormwater management designed to applicable state standards, and proposed traffic mitigation including funding toward signalization at MD Route 4 and Saint Andrews Lane and other off-site improvements. The development-team traffic consultant (Mike Nalepa) said the updated traffic study addresses the increased density and that the applicant is proposing impact fee contributions and mitigation through the DRA.

Concerns raised by commissioners and public

Commissioners, county staff and many public commenters focused on vehicular access and Route 4 capacity. Residents of Saint Andrews Estates and other neighbors said existing access at Saint Andrews Lane is operating poorly, uses Bellwood Lane in part because of sight-line issues, and that adding hundreds of housing units plus a school site will further stress a corridor many speakers characterized as already failing. The developer offered to fund a signal at Saint Andrews Lane/Route 4 and to contribute toward improvements at Wildwood Parkway; a past correspondence referenced an applicant proffer of 7.91% toward the Wildwood Parkway signal cost for an earlier study.

Other topics included stormwater and pond preservation: the developer said a large on-site pond that drains a multi-square-mile basin would be preserved, enhanced and managed to maintain pre-development pond elevation at a 100-year storm; the applicant said stormwater work would follow current state rules. Commissioners also asked about landfill buffers: county public-works staff explained an existing 200-foot administrative buffer was on record and the county had modeled 500-foot and 1,500-foot radii around a future landfill cell; commissioners asked the county to supply formal guidance on buffer rules and existing Board of Appeals conditions.

Action: continued hearing and next steps

Commissioners voted to continue both the PUD and the DRA to the next Planning Commission hearing (scheduled by motion for January 14, 2008). Staff and the applicant agreed to provide additional materials before the continued hearing: revised traffic analyses that explicitly consider Bellwood Lane and offsets, a clear phasing and schedule for recreational and school-site amenities, clarifications on stormwater design standards to be applied, documentation about the landfill buffer and applicable Board of Appeals conditions, and a written proffer schedule for off-site traffic mitigation and contributions (including the methodology for the Wildwood Parkway amount). The commission also asked that the applicants provide a clearer timetable for project phasing and for any PUD time-limit or sunset provisions the county should require.

Sources and attribution

This article summarizes the applicant presentations by John Norris and NG&O Engineering, testimony by the project architect and traffic consultant, staff remarks from the Department of Public Works (John Groger), and numerous public comments recorded in the planning commission meeting transcript. Direct counts, unit totals and quoted commitments are attributed to the developers’ presentation and the transcript.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","11/26/2007 St. Mary's County Planning Commission","oneSentenceSummary","The Planning Commission continued review of the Saint Mary's Crossing PUD and developer's rights and responsibilities agreement after developers outlined an updated plan with 868 total units and a workforce-housing component and neighbors raised traffic, access and environmental-buffer concerns.","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},6345642,"Planning Commission recommends awarding 6.24 acres of growth allocation for Hodges family parcels",3249,22000,3271000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2248733-22e5c07e91eb6763ff32f2176cb958aa&start=22&end=3271","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2248733-22e5c07e91eb6763ff32f2176cb958aa/thumbnail_22000.jpg","/articles/6345642/St-Marys-County/Maryland/Planning-Commission-recommends-awarding-624-acres-of-growth-allocation-for-Hodges-family-parcels","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345642-0ca1548d5402df129bcfb2a12d708375/orig.mp4?Expires=1775365609&Signature=eK94d7tYEDj3TCvndtu7heRCIva~AFC8LQMkURELTnCprqOj245tmGPXpjPgxj0NTQM640-qEzhg4IDcDKxBVEJFNuMayVlpEV~nSrnRGJN3coiSZmTfYbopQ-mm2vX3V0Bjd5UilX274OIxSaKBehD-LF~1yv9rS~qiDpi7KnJsNjCT~d12WkPGXmFbMN6bqZVC4O8bI0xUOM1Sa4i2aEORZbrKBeEXZdiyb32-wngaHQaQcUzVyqjs27JNuCCrwgnk3Luv1bRgaDXNucGzX9vs6NuWMSx5WLOxx8zoJVH-7PFUAz0dV9YMPiP6LVz7hMXUKgW4ZdFnzfdsWfVhaQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The St. Mary's County Planning Commission recommended that the Board of County Commissioners award 6.24 acres of the county's growth allocation to allow subdivision of two agricultural parcels in the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area into two building lots.

The commission’s recommendation, made and moved by Miss McNeil, seconded by Mr. Evans and approved unanimously, applies to Tax Map 47 Grid 3 Parcel 328 (3.62 acres, owned by Barbara Hodges Link) and Parcel 340 (2.62 acres, owned by Lewis C. Hodges). The parcels were deeded from a larger parent parcel, Tax Map 47 Grid 3 Parcel 15 (about 36.8 acres), in a series of conveyances that staff said predated or were affected by the county critical area rules.

The action matters because the parcels lie inside St. Mary’s County’s Chesapeake Bay Critical Area overlay; awarding growth allocation changes the overlay designation from Resource Conservation Area (RCA) to Limited Development Area (LDA) for the 6.24 acres and permits creation of two buildable lots under county rules.

Staff presentation and findings

Sue (planning staff, Department of Land Use and Growth Management) reviewed the parcel history and the critical-area and growth-allocation criteria the commission must apply. Staff said the parent parcel existed in 1942 and that two small agricultural parcels were later carved from it in 1993 and 2003. Because those divisions occurred after the state critical-area law effective date (1985), staff said the entire parent parcel must be considered when calculating growth allocation.

Staff identified environmental constraints: the lots are adjacent to Canoe Net Creek and include mapped heron rookery habitat; the county’s critical-area buffer expands from 100 feet to 300 feet for growth-allocation lots. Staff said the only portions of the buildable area that require encroachment are two sewage reserve areas (10,000-square-foot easements on each lot), and that the expanded 300-foot buffer otherwise must be left undisturbed or established as forested buffer. The reforestation, setback, and other mitigation items were proposed as conditions of approval. DNR reviewed the proposal and provided comments, and staff said DNR did not oppose the request based on the site’s existing agricultural use and surrounding low-density development.

Key conditions in the commission’s recommendation

The planning commission’s motion forwarded these principal conditions for the Board of County Commissioners and for later final subdivision approval:
- Accept staff and commission findings that the request is substantially consistent with the St. Mary’s County Comprehensive Plan and the county zoning ordinance growth-allocation criteria.
- Approve award of 6.24 acres of growth allocation and forward notice of intent to the Critical Area Commission.
- Require that the expanded 300-foot critical-area buffer on Lots 2 and 3 (excluding the sewage reserve easements) be allowed to regenerate as natural forest in all non-farmed areas; if farming ceases, the areas must be either allowed to regenerate or be planted with diverse native forest vegetation.
- Prohibit mowing or vegetation management in the expanded buffer except as recommended by the county forester and approved by the Department of Land Use and Growth Management; a planting agreement ensuring reforestation must be executed when the subdivision is recorded.
- Relocate driveways as necessary to avoid buffer encroachment; meet all Technical Evaluation Committee comments and county subdivision ordinance provisions prior to final approval; assure compliance with public facilities and road standards for private road segments if dwelling counts trigger standards.

Public comment and applicant materials

Jerry Nuckelby (engineer, Albuquerque Surveying Inc.), speaking for the applicants, said certified notices to adjacent owners were mailed and provided a list of recipients and certified mail receipts to staff. Margaret Hodges Bailey, identified herself as an heir to the original farm and said the will’s intent was to provide lots to the children; she spoke in favor. Neighbor John Colton said he supported the reforestation conditions and expected the proposed plantings would improve water quality.

Vote and next steps

Miss McNeil moved the recommended finding and conditions; Mr. Evans seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The planning commission’s recommendation will go to the Board of County Commissioners, which must act to finalize the award of growth allocation and the change of critical-area overlay; if the board approves, the county will forward notice to the Maryland Critical Area Commission and the applicants must satisfy the listed conditions before final subdivision and building permits.

Sources and attribution

Direct quotations and specific findings in this article come from the planning commission meeting transcript, the staff report presentation delivered by Sue (planning staff), and public remarks by Jerry Nuckelby (engineer) and Margaret Hodges Bailey (heir).","The St. Mary's County Planning Commission recommended that the Board of County Commissioners award 6.24 acres of the county's growth allocation to allow subdivision of two agricultural parcels in the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area into two building lots.",{"_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},6345631,"Planning Commission tables Greenmount family conveyance after questions about deed history and private road access",1067,5587000,6654000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2248733-22e5c07e91eb6763ff32f2176cb958aa&start=5587&end=6654","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2248733-22e5c07e91eb6763ff32f2176cb958aa/thumbnail_5587000.jpg","/articles/6345631/St-Marys-County/Maryland/Planning-Commission-tables-Greenmount-family-conveyance-after-questions-about-deed-history-and-private-road-access","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345631-b00cf44358e5bc312a2ba8be1ca617d6/orig.mp4?Expires=1775365609&Signature=eY8P6z3Z2Dtr2zSOSVdPqOrDwuXfP4TTLie7rgFReHQvtZqBKPxmM3~Y2uRJTLK7tPWxBgscRlQtP7ThzGhbV10seSELf2ohlqNMViZHXkuDRzYkaAnP3Os5apkgIL2PP0zAwcSBE~kFrKEhM1iKILYi~1E9Ryy6J6bzxm6BR1hbyp35YWSYMYL5IdyN4YTyh9WN~PwrfGsbg69H~PdaDPcn3zYOsvzCeEfuZW78w4iumkC1m1z6j-barX8PLye-NJYk30FIoRDNg-RN-vETB~hhXY177-Ltf2SImqWYKqhHsUUz-ZiVLJCxNZvxpNfw0xX127pGgsTpac3oiWYUXQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The planning commission voted to table action on the Greenmount Minor Subdivision family conveyance after staff and multiple public commenters raised questions about deed history and ownership of the private road that would serve the new lot.

The request: family conveyance on a private road

Staff (Bob Boles, Department of Land Use and Growth Management) presented a preliminary review of a family-conveyance request to create an additional lot on a private road for the Greenmount property (owner listed as Doris A. Wood). Under St. Mary’s County Subdivision Ordinance 02-02, section 30.11.04 (family conveyance provision), an additional lot on a private road may be approved if explicit criteria are met, including notice to all private-road users, proof of certified mail receipts, a road-maintenance agreement suitable for recordation, limitations on subsequent transfer (typically a restriction on transfer to a third party for five years), and that the grantee be a qualifying family member.

During the staff presentation Boles said that, if approved, the additional lot would bring total lots on the private road to seven. Staff said the applicant had agreed to record a maintenance agreement and other documentation; a favorable draft motion and findings had been prepared by staff.

Issues raised in public comment and by staff

Public commenters who said they own or maintain parts of the private road said they had not received prior notice or that notices had arrived only recently; several neighbors, including the lane owners, objected to the specific lot layout and to a perceived plan to expand use of the private right-of-way. Neighbors said they had been maintaining and upgrading the road and that they had not agreed to allow the proposed change in access or to grant a recordable right to pave or dedicate the road to the county.

William P. Higgs (surveyor, Little Sons of Rest Incorporated) and Robert Wood (applicant’s representative / family member) answered questions about parcel configuration and deed history. During the public exchange staff reported that the original expectation that the parcel was held in a single ownership was not accurate: title searches and deeds showed multiple family members on the deed and the staff recommended further verification.

Action and reasoning

Because of uncertainties about the deeds and about whether certified mail and notice requirements had been met for all private-road users, a commissioner moved to table the application until staff could verify the record titles, deed history, and certified-notice receipts. A second was recorded and the motion passed unanimously; staff will return with clarified deed information, verified notification receipts, and any required corrective steps before the commission considers the family-conveyance approval again.

Key details

- Ordinance cited: St. Mary’s County Subdivision Ordinance (02-02), section 30.11.04 (family conveyance).
- Private-road issue: staff stated the additional lot would bring the private-road total to seven lots; ordinance and county policy require certified notices to private-road users and a recorded road-maintenance agreement.
- Conditions listed in staff materials (to be completed before final approval) included a maintenance agreement suitable for recordation, plat notes referencing deed recording, and a prohibition on grantee transfer to a third party for five years.

Next steps

Staff will recheck deed records, title/special ownership issues and confirm certified-mail notice receipts and will return the application to the commission with corrected ownership and notification evidence. The commission took no substantive vote on the conveyance itself; the item is tabled pending staff follow-up.

Sources and attribution

Reporting is based on the staff presentation by Bob Boles; surveyor William P. Higgs; applicant representative Robert Wood; and public testimony by neighbors and private-road owners recorded in the meeting transcript.","The Planning Commission tabled a requested family-conveyance minor subdivision (Greenmount) that would add a lot on a private road, after staff and public testimony revealed ownership and deed complexities for the private road and the residual parcel; the commission asked staff to verify deeds and road-notice records before returning the item.",{"_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},6345636,"St. Mary's River Watershed Association urges watershed restoration action strategy after long-term monitoring shows summer low-oxygen events",1993,3574000,5567000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2248733-22e5c07e91eb6763ff32f2176cb958aa&start=3574&end=5567","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2248733-22e5c07e91eb6763ff32f2176cb958aa/thumbnail_3574000.jpg","/articles/6345636/St-Marys-County/Maryland/St-Marys-River-Watershed-Association-urges-watershed-restoration-action-strategy-after-long-term-monitoring-shows-summer-low-oxygen-events","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345636-aa21f5ad10c6286f2b57d9aad94033c2/orig.mp4?Expires=1775365610&Signature=A08gyfD2WnHdg-c-XDHL7TchjoDd48wASAw6ch7MU16GNLOf-Ds9YqwrBABLpzoDrryainBZVPqUSSAlf8fvI1le0y9gAFiSIxDHUh1kylpXz0TlEpZLs3EpH0PXJ47Ima5q5i3mO5N1lkwDQtnAOYFo6Rcodt7zB5NqRcmX9LqXf0XZlb5WjIRcyV6W-rPZvpfORLmlDbPp263gkFogQj942CmNQvnS9CgEPN25T7~wE~ZwuUAnkoy2uisIiC4zEN3BoJFdVQUXo1Pu7MvF-VCJni2GpTqotjAtZMtgR28f8GMcP846uPY9hv-wvxKixwfaXWmvvTK8qOp424l5Fw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The St. Mary's River Watershed Association presented data from more than a decade of monitoring showing recurring summer low dissolved-oxygen events and reduced water clarity in the St. Mary's River and urged the county to join a two-year watershed restoration action strategy (RAS) to compile past studies and set restoration priorities.

Bob Paul (St. Mary's River Watershed Association) and Joe Anderson (chair, St. Mary's River Watershed Association) told the planning commission the association has collected multi-year data at numerous tidal and non-tidal sites since 1999 and that the evidence points to land-use runoff and episodic high-precipitation events as the primary drivers of algal blooms, sediment loads and summer bottom-water oxygen depletion. Paul said the association’s work shows the river has “depressed oxygen down here in the bottom part of the river” during summer months and that secchi-disk measurements frequently fall below a one-meter threshold that limits light penetration and harms submerged aquatic vegetation.

Why it matters

Paul said the watershed is large (about 45,000–46,000 acres) and contains roughly 84 miles of tidal shoreline and more than 300 miles of stream channels. The association samples many small tributaries because sediments and nutrients from those streams are ultimately delivered to the tidal river. The group said the pattern of high spring runoff followed by summer algal growth, subsequent die-off and decomposition leads to low oxygen at the bottom and harms oysters and other bottom-dwelling organisms.

Recommendations and next steps

The association proposed the county sponsor a Watershed Restoration Action Strategy (RAS) for the St. Mary’s River, modeled on the Breton Bay RAS and expected to take about two years to complete. The RAS would compile disparate prior studies (DNR, Army Corps, colleges, state agencies), set community-level loading caps, and recommend land-use, stormwater, buffer and retrofitting priorities. The presenters said they had already begun initial organization and sought a partnership among the county Department of Land Use and Growth Management, St. Mary's College, citizen groups and state agencies.

The association also pointed to a recent U.S. EPA Office of Inspector General report (dated Sept. 10, 2007) warning that new development is increasing nutrient and sediment loads faster than restoration efforts are reducing them; the association used that finding to argue for more proactive watershed-scale planning and funding for on-the-ground stormwater and buffer practices.

Commission response and follow-up

Commissioners asked for the presentation slides and for follow-up on how the RAS would be resourced and coordinated with the county’s comprehensive-plan update. Paul and Joe Anderson said the association would participate in the comprehensive-plan process and provide the data and recommendations. Staff offered to circulate the presentation slides and the cited EPA inspector-general report to commissioners and agreed to discuss coordination with the comprehensive-plan update.

Sources and attribution

This article summarizes the presentation given by Bob Paul and Joe Anderson for the St. Mary's River Watershed Association and the subsequent Q&A with planning commissioners and county staff during the planning commission meeting. Direct figures and quotations come from the association's presentation and the meeting transcript.","The St. Mary's River Watershed Association presented long-term water-quality monitoring showing recurring low dissolved-oxygen and low-water-clarity events in summer months and proposed a two-year Watershed Restoration Action Strategy (RAS) to compile existing studies and recommend land-use and stormwater practices.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning Commission continues Saint Mary's Crossing PUD and DRA after developer and public debate over density, traffic and access

Planning Commission recommends awarding 6.24 acres of growth allocation for Hodges family parcels

Planning Commission tables Greenmount family conveyance after questions about deed history and private road access

St. Mary's River Watershed Association urges watershed restoration action strategy after long-term monitoring shows summer low-oxygen events