La Plata planning commission grants 1-year extension for Pine Grove Neighborhood B preliminary plat

The La Plata Planning Commission on a unanimous vote approved a one-year time extension for the preliminary plat of Pine Grove Neighborhood B, allowing the developer additional time — to Sept. 17, 2026 — to secure water allocation and complete prerequisites for final plat recordation.

Director Kevin Dooley, La Plata planning staff, told the commission that the extension applies to a previously approved major subdivision (MJSUB02-2024) covering 107 attached single-family homes in Neighborhood B of the Pine Grove development. Dooley said staff supports the request because ‘‘there are no proposed changes to the preliminary plat map or to the environmental setting of the subdivision’’ and because the town currently cannot provide sufficient water allocation for the development.

The extension request followed a presentation by Steve Scott, land-use attorney with Scott Law Group, who represented the developer, D.R. Horton. Scott said the project ‘‘cannot move on to a final subdivision plat without the [water] capacity being available’’ and that the developer has obtained a mass-grading permit and remains active on the site. Brian George, project manager for D.R. Horton, and engineers from Rogers Consulting joined the discussion to answer technical questions.

Commissioners used the discussion to review how the town’s prospective adequate public facilities ordinance (APFO) and existing developer agreements interact with an approved preliminary plat. Councilman Guttenberg asked whether new town standards adopted during the extension period could be applied to this plat. Dooley replied that a project subject to a prior, intact approval generally remains grandfathered at the final-plat stage, but the town could evaluate and condition a project when considering a time extension: ‘‘If the APFO necessitated or suggested that the project would need to be modified, that would be the time to do that as part of the time extension request because the commission is not obligated to approve an extension.’’

Commissioners and staff also discussed transportation milestones tied to the development. The developer and consultants said some off-site improvements, including a signalized intersection at Willow Lane and Route 6, are part of the project’s obligations and that traffic impact analyses (TIAs) will be updated at set milestones (for example, every 750 units under the development agreements). Rogers Consulting engineer Chris Lazarachian explained that traffic-signal warrants must be reviewed and agreed by the town, Charles County, and the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) before permitting and construction can proceed.

Dooley noted the project contains a developer’s rights and responsibilities agreement (DRRA) that addresses school allocations and other mitigation; he said the DRRA limits school allocations to 200 per year under its schedule and is consistent with county school-allocation policy. Scott confirmed the master site development plan and the DRRA govern the development’s phasing and mitigation commitments.

After discussion, the commission took formal action. A motion to adopt the draft resolution approving the one-year extension for MJSUB02-2024 passed unanimously; the commission recorded affirmative votes and the extension was adopted.

The commission and the developer agreed to return for additional briefings to update newer commissioners and to review project milestones as Pine Grove advances. Staff also noted Neighborhood C of Pine Grove — described in staff materials as a forthcoming, senior residential community — is anticipated to be presented to the commission at a future meeting for consideration of its preliminary plat and related conditions.