[{"_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",6109284,"mediaKeyId","2762619-498f4d914727cc3c06b653a80034bcd0","parentId",2762619,"title","Consultants outline St. Mary's County comprehensive-plan update; public engagement drew about 288 participants","audioSeconds",2464,"startMs",2376000,"endMs",4840000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2762619-498f4d914727cc3c06b653a80034bcd0&start=2376&end=4840","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2762619-498f4d914727cc3c06b653a80034bcd0/thumbnail_2376000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6109284/St-Marys-County/Maryland/Consultants-outline-St-Marys-County-comprehensive-plan-update-public-engagement-drew-about-288-participants","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6109284-fe6d7d5f3607192aace24ff85b21185f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141403&Signature=hHqqedNzfrE1Nb3hpbvlCSNtLBfS~axFIC4Bmuq3ogro5zguhDGWiaOEjHw9pVf8zloCqxnBJ4QeX8VAPDvnVvut~neW9hKvke1zLllRs3z-9Dl3QrlDBCOeycDG80g3NEBT93vGoCXRcG18PPYgwcyhThOPfYT05xT3joWLcl1hOtT~Vpzslqk~UOOTWtmS8rToYB~CHrY-74vdpOg41adDiP-A4tm0VUrXbAKyk1ZeXH8COoon8Ijh20hh0cY7VWN4NCG7gzciKYKli6a7orQo58g2NhJtXf1j4M3RxQg3grnnabtvIxS7~ARrKljFhMcZI~nitFGC48AhkHUZ7Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","St. Mary's County, MD","date","2025-03-25T12:19:21Z","article","Consultants working on St. Mary's County's comprehensive-plan update told the Planning Commission on March 24 that early public outreach attracted about 288 participants and that the team plans a second community engagement window in late spring as it moves into drafting policies.

Leanne King, director at Clarion Associates, summarized findings from community engagement window one (Jan. 16'Mar. 3), saying the outreach included 12 visioning sessions (10 in person, two virtual), an online survey and two mapping activities. King reported 288 total participants across the in-person and online activities and said the project team is posting detailed results and comments on the project website and the publicinput.com platform.

Why it matters: the comprehensive plan sets the county's future land-use framework, growth strategy, transportation priorities and policy direction for utilities, conservation and housing; it informs later zoning and capital planning decisions.

Key themes from the engagement team:
- Strong public support for balancing growth in identified development districts and town centers with protection of rural and agricultural areas and sensitive coastal wetlands.
- Interest in targeted infrastructure investment to support redevelopment in aging areas and to address failing septic systems in remote locations; some respondents supported consideration of packaged treatment plants for areas with failing septic.
- Demand for more walking and biking options, improved public transit connections and road-safety improvements in key corridors.
- A desire for more affordable and workforce housing in growth areas to serve critical employees and young professionals; consultants said common practice in similar communities is defining workforce-affordable housing in a band roughly around 80% to 120% of area median income, though Clarion had not yet set a St. Mary's-specific income target.

King described the first engagement'window demographic skew (an overrepresentation of participants aged 45 and older relative to Census figures) and said 16 of the county's 27 ZIP codes were represented by respondents. Survey results showed broad agreement that the county should continue directing new development to growth areas and town centers and strong support for protecting sensitive natural resources. On housing, respondents generally favored smaller homes and townhomes in growth areas (about 76% agreed) and endorsed multifamily housing to a lesser degree (about 66% agreed); manufactured/mobile homes in growth areas produced no consensus.

The Clarion team proposed a simplified plan framework with three parts: an accessible introduction (including a glossary and monitoring approach); a policy section grouped into (1) guiding growth through 2050, (2) protecting environmental and agricultural resources, and (3) serving the community (facilities, transportation, housing, public health). The final plan would include a future land-use map and an implementation/action plan with monitoring metrics.

Planning commissioners and staff discussed outreach tactics for the next engagement window. Suggestions included public-intercept events (farmers markets, festivals), scanning QR codes at parks and sports events, short paper surveys to avoid mobile-loading issues, and earlier publicity. Deputy county attorney John Sterling Houser cautioned about Open Meetings Act constraints if staff or commission members gather in numbers that constitute a quorum, but said staff-run meetings with consultants are typical and can be managed to stay compliant.

Next steps: Clarion and county staff said they will begin drafting policy language, incorporate stakeholder interview findings and prepare for community engagement window two (targeted for May'June) to test draft policies and gather further input. The team aims for public hearings and plan adoption in early 2026 under the proposed timeline.

Materials and data collected in the first engagement window will be posted on the project website and in the publicinput.com project portal; Clarion flagged that report formatting will be finalized before broad distribution.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","3/24/25 Planning Commission for St. Mary's County","oneSentenceSummary","Consultants reported that the first public-engagement window for St. Mary's County's comprehensive-plan update drew about 288 participants and outlined a three-part draft plan framework as the team moves into policy drafting.","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},6109291,"Planning Commission finds MetCom FY2026–FY2031 capital plan consistent with county comprehensive plan; transmits recommendation",2091,242000,2333000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2762619-498f4d914727cc3c06b653a80034bcd0&start=242&end=2333","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2762619-498f4d914727cc3c06b653a80034bcd0/thumbnail_242000.jpg","/articles/6109291/St-Marys-County/Maryland/Planning-Commission-finds-MetCom-FY2026FY2031-capital-plan-consistent-with-county-comprehensive-plan-transmits-recommendation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6109291-0f7c32593c94c5b66eee67a094c7f745/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141403&Signature=kuntW820PTceU6KQHetSYSUPFHVXvThAM2LOLFUwscG87Dh~3IT1InvTcc907MvQujktEUIUBTcY3sk2TeQqyISz0B~9N14-jLeQ1f7t-eIololCcAOwMXrNybj4rrhsdMLh9V1g-szxLB9UNPXupZ1U0Fq8IJxhn9W25IEetjHs-MP5HezIodB77jZVYMlKzRD~LRljcBuxzdHGst-IkPWlyXPiT4qA8AHY0yGeaOWy05KtV4mKRJ3-BzE4bwD4UjbY9ohWSz6Hhy0Jk-igL8XX8VaYmnorboLcS6iob~b22Huf2ZmszfNA~9pUYgGQ67sn7IFfYu2~QHlszsnZjA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The St. Mary's County Planning Commission voted March 24 to find the St. Mary's County Metropolitan Commission's FY2026'through'FY2031 capital improvement plan and budget consistent with the county comprehensive plan and to transmit a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners.

The vote followed a presentation by George Erickson, executive director of the St. Mary's County Metropolitan Commission (MetCom), and Christy Hollander, MetCom chief engineer, who summarized priority water and sewer projects, cost updates and grant activity. Erickson said most of the CIP is a rollover of existing projects, but he flagged several items the Planning Commission should note, including an expansion and new treatment plant for St. Clement Shores, an EDU (equivalent dwelling unit) transfer program, and upgrades to multiple pump stations and force mains.

Why it matters: the CIP contains projects and debt that affect future development patterns, rates and which properties will have access to public sewer and water. Planning Commission review is required before the county commissioners approve MetCom's budget and any service-area expansions.

Erickson told the commission the St. Clement Shores project will add roughly 320 EDUs and a treatment plant budgeted at more than $20 million; the plant design will use enhanced nutrient removal (ENR) technology and MetCom secured a state grant of $10.2 million for the work. MetCom staff said an additional $2.7 million appears in out years for trunk-line upgrades and that the commission added roughly $3.5 million in MetCom funds previously to extend and upgrade trunk lines. Residential hookups are shown in the CIP in later years and were described as financed through special taxing districts that would amortize the cost to homeowners over 20 to 30 years. MetCom staff said Bay Restoration Fund support is available to eligible homeowners (the health department administers the program) and that individual assistance can cover up to $20,000 per lot; the state now allows neighbors to pool Bay Restoration funds to build service for a full street.

The commission also discussed MetCom's recently codified EDU transfer standard operating procedure (adopted into internal procedures last August, according to MetCom). That SOP restricts transfers to sewer-only EDUs and keeps transfers within the same sewer shed (treatment shed), meaning EDUs cannot be moved between unrelated treatment plants. MetCom described the transfer program as creating a limited market for unused EDUs held by property owners in one service area to be sold to developers in the same sewer shed.

On other capital items, MetCom engineers described:
- a Wicomico Shores replacement well whose estimated cost rose from about $400,000 to more than $1 million after site work and a required deeper Patapsco aquifer well;
- the Piney Point booster pump, pump-station upgrades and a multi-phase force-main replacement (first sections targeted for bid this summer);
- a Forest Run pump station project to serve the YMCA and additional development in the Great Mills Road area;
- expanded I&I (inflow and infiltration) televising and rehabilitation work;
- AMI advanced metering initiatives (MetCom said it advanced some funding and may deploy \u001a'gateway\u001a' antenna devices for about $50,000 on towers and a phased meter rollout to enable near-real-time reads); and
- a multi-year generator replacement program (MetCom maintains roughly 92 generators and replaces about two per year).

MetCom staff said they sought Bay Restoration grants for several projects including the Piney Point forcemain; staff reached eligibility but did not receive enough points to secure the award and reinserted about $3.5 million into the CIP. One earlier-identified sewer rehabilitation project (Spring Valley) was removed after televising showed no defects.

MetCom also reviewed operating assumptions: staff reported roughly 89 new water EDUs and 147 new sewer EDUs per year (historically stable), an operating-rate increase proposal of about 2.1% for water and 2.7% for sewer in the coming year, and an estimated average residential bill increase of about $1.73 per month tied to the operating budget. MetCom reported a current combined capital contribution charge for new service of roughly $19,880, which staff contrasted with higher charges in neighboring jurisdictions.

Motion and outcome: Planning Commission member [motion text read into the record] moved that the Planning Commission accept the St. Mary's County Metropolitan Commission FY2026 through FY2031 capital improvement plan and budget as consistent with the comprehensive plan and authorize the chair to sign a letter to the County Commissioners confirming those findings and recommending approval; the motion was seconded and passed by roll call (all votes recorded as aye). The Planning Commission chair was authorized to send the transmittal letter to the Board of County Commissioners.

What the commission asked to follow up: commissioners and staff asked for GIS mapping of MetCom service and sewer-shed areas (MetCom said service-area maps are being placed on the county GIS and that staff hopes to map all eight treatment plants), for clarification on homeowner costs for hookups versus trunk upgrades, and for continued tracking of grant outcomes so budgets do not assume awards that are not yet secured.

Funding and implementation notes: MetCom staff emphasized that parts of the St. Clement Shores work depend on construction sequencing (treatment plant, trunk-line upgrades, then residential hookups) and on external grant awards. Staff warned that, for remote problem sewer areas, package treatment plants or other site-specific solutions may be needed and that land acquisition and forward planning could reduce long-term costs.

A roll-call motion and unanimous finding of consistency concluded the presentation; the Planning Commission will forward its recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for final action.","The St. Mary's County Planning Commission voted March 24 to find the St. Mary's County Metropolitan Commission's FY2026'through'FY2031 capital improvement plan and budget consistent with the county comprehensive plan and to transmit a recommendation of approval to the County Commissioners.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Consultants outline St. Mary's County comprehensive-plan update; public engagement drew about 288 participants

Planning Commission finds MetCom FY2026–FY2031 capital plan consistent with county comprehensive plan; transmits recommendation