Prince George’s County Council (sitting as the District Council) on Oct. 6 heard oral arguments on a remanded detailed site plan (DSP 22001) that would replace a building at Green Meadows Shopping Center with a McDonald’s eating and drinking establishment with a double drive‑through located at the northeast quadrant of East‑West Highway (MD‑410) and Ager Road in Council District 2. The council did not vote and took the matter under advisement; the planning board previously approved the plan with conditions and the remand followed a district‑council order requiring additional evidence on specified issues.

The case returned to the council after a remand order dated April 25, 2025 directed the planning board to reopen the record on a discrete set of questions including on‑site vehicular and pedestrian circulation, a health impact assessment referral, additional technical reports, legal ownership, archaeological resources and hearing notice. Hojung Garland, a planner with the Maryland‑National Capital Park and Planning Commission, summarized the planning board record and said the board approved the remand‑phase plan subject to five conditions; the planning board’s decision is in resolution number 2025‑0088 (as referenced in staff materials).

Opponents — parents from Cesar Chavez Dual Spanish Immersion Elementary School and neighborhood advocates — urged the council to disapprove, saying the site is too close to the school, the planning record omitted necessary health analysis, outreach to Spanish‑speaking neighbors was insufficient and off‑site traffic and air‑quality impacts were not adequately addressed. Rebecca Rios, a parent and PTO co‑chair, said the school community is “in our backyard” and argued the planning board’s review was cursory. Rachel Mulford, also a PTO parent, told the council the intersection is among the county’s most dangerous and that parents are concerned about students who walk, bike and bus to school.

Appellants and opponents repeatedly criticized what they described as a minimal health impact assessment. Greg Smith, an appellant and person of record, said the health‑department referral letter in the record lacks methodological detail and recommendations and therefore does not constitute a full health impact assessment. Parents and community members presented environmental‑justice screening data, petition signatures and neighborhood testimony asserting heightened asthma and other health risks for nearby residents and students (the school is about 0.3 miles from the site, per parent testimony).

The applicant, represented by Edward Gibbs, an attorney for McDonald’s USA LLC, and a technical team including Mark Ferguson (land planner), Nick Speech (civil engineer) and Lenhart Traffic Consulting, told the council that the remand points were addressed in the reopened record. Gibbs summarized the applicant’s evidence and argued the district council’s role is limited: “If there is substantial evidence in the record from which a reasoning person could come to the conclusion that the planning board did, then that decision has to be affirmed,” he said, citing appellate standards and cases the applicant placed in the record.

On the site‑design technical points, the applicant’s team described multiple on‑site changes and supporting analyses. Traffic consultant memos in the record show that the drive‑through stacking was analyzed against Institute of Transportation Engineers guidance (ITE guidance cited in the record recommends 13 vehicles from entry to exit). The applicant’s presentation noted on‑site stacking capacity of roughly 18–20 spaces (12–14 from entry to order board plus six additional pickup spaces), conversion of the internal circulation to one‑way aisles (with minimum aisle widths of 22 feet and some areas up to 27 feet), additional internal crosswalks and sidewalk tie‑ins to the MD‑410 sidewalk, added speed bumps, and a loading restriction condition (loading limited to 11 p.m.–7 a.m., a condition included in the planning‑board approval). The State Highway Administration (SHA) submitted a referral indicating support for consolidating two closely spaced driveways into one channelized right‑in/right‑out access in front of the proposed restaurant; the applicant said it consolidated access points from four to three consistent with SHA’s recommendation.

On archaeological concerns, the applicant brought an archaeologist and a cadaver‑dog team; Dr. James Gibb and handler Heather Roach performed test shovel pits and cadaver‑dog surveys. The applicant reported that the dogs did not alert and that archaeological field testing did not reveal gravesites or artifacts. The planning‑board record includes those exhibits and the board added a remand‑condition requiring a reflection area for an external historic marker commemorating enslaved persons associated with nearby Green Hill; the applicant told the council it is willing to pursue on‑site and possible broader commemorative measures and posters inside the restaurant, and said it would work with the community on additional forms of remembrance if authorized.

Councilmember and public questions focused on the adequacy of the health‑department referral, whether off‑site traffic and crash risk are properly considered during a DSP review, and whether planned on‑site mitigations would be effective given intersection congestion. Park and Planning staff and the applicant repeatedly distinguished between criteria that are directly applicable to a detailed site plan and broader off‑site or master‑plan conformity issues; opponents and several council members argued the DSP is the only public‑review opportunity for projects on a site without a prior conceptual plan or subdivision and therefore must fully address cumulative public‑health and traffic effects.

No council vote was taken Oct. 6; the council took the matter under advisement. The planning‑board resolution number referenced in the record is 2025‑0088 (planning‑board approval with conditions and remand findings), and the case filings list an appeal‑by date of Aug. 14, 2025 and an action‑by date of Oct. 30, 2025. The council’s future action date was not resolved at the hearing.

Why this matters: The site is in a neighborhood advocacy and school context that opponents described as an environmental‑justice area; the dispute centers on whether a permitted commercial use with a high‑volume drive‑through at a congested MD‑410 intersection should be approved via a DSP when neighbors say off‑site safety, air quality and cumulative health impacts have not been analyzed in sufficient detail.