St. Mary's County Board of Appeals denies Riverside Townhomes concept plan, cites safety and traffic concerns

Leonardtown, Md. — The St. Mary's County Board of Appeals voted unanimously March 27 to deny the concept site plan for the Riverside Townhomes, a proposed 42-unit townhouse development along Maryland Route 235, finding the proposal did not meet objectives of section 60.6 of the countycomprehensive zoning ordinance.

The board's decision followed extended testimony and debate over traffic impacts, school-bus access and site safety. After accepting the staff report, Rita Weaver, a member of the Board of Appeals, moved to disapprove the concept site plan; the motion was seconded and carried by the four voting members present. John Brown had recused himself because he previously sat on the Planning Commission when the project was considered.

Why it matters: The project was proposed for land zoned MXM, where higher-density residential is permitted. The applicant said the design follows zoning standards and that engineering and traffic professionals certified compliance with required tests. Opponents and several board members said operational safety at the nearby Route 235 intersection and school-bus stops were not adequately addressed by the plan and available mitigation.

Applicant revisions and mitigation offers: The applicant team presented an amended plan and several commitments made after the Planning Commission hearing. Those revisions included shifting a retaining wall roughly 15 feet away from the northeast property line adjacent to 3 Notch Dental, removing an adjacent storm drain, adding a 10-foot landscaped strip and a 6-foot privacy fence, and proposing supplemental Arborvitae (the applicant discussed Thuja Green Giants specifically with the dental office owner). The team also said it would coordinate on a security gate at the dental-office entrance and provide a 17-foot shoulder along the property frontage intended to give school buses the option to pull out of the travel lanes. The applicant offered a mitigation payment toward an intersection improvement (a traffic signal at MD 235 and FDR Boulevard) to address impacts.

Traffic evidence and dispute: The project's traffic study is dated Feb. 26, 2024, and the applicant said it incorporated traffic counts from November 2023 and the county's established trip-generation rates. The applicant's traffic consultant and counsel said site sight distance, vehicle gaps seen in a video the consultant made of the adjacent driveway, and the distance (about 600 feet) between the proposed driveway and the MD 235/Route 4 intersection reduce safety risk. The applicant's representative said, "We followed the law to a tee, applied the tests that are applicable in the law," and that the team used the trip-generation methods prescribed by the zoning ordinance.

Board concerns and opposition: Board members repeatedly raised concerns about everyday operational safety at the intersection and the effect of additional residents on an intersection already identified as failing. Several members said recent increases in commuter traffic and the return of people to on-site work had changed driving conditions since earlier counts. Member Rita Weaver said she remained concerned about children being picked up and dropped off on MD 235 and the adequacy of safe school-bus access. Member Ronald Payne described the existing traffic as hazardous and said the proposal would add too many vehicles to the area. The board noted that while the applicant followed the technical requirements of traffic studies, those studies can show compliance even when members judge an area unsafe in daily operation.

Public input and the dental-office agreement: The county received multiple written comments and letters from neighbors and businesses; the owner of 3 Notch Dental, John Seisman, testified that he met with the applicant team and that the parties agreed to move the retaining wall, relocate stormwater features, install screening plantings and add a gate to prevent overflow parking onto his property. Seisman told the board: "We are going to put a gate, an automatic gate up front [on my property] so they can't go there." The applicant said the summary of the meeting was provided to staff and added to the record.

Board action and next steps: After debate, the board accepted the staff report, found the objectives of section 60.6 had not been met, and disapproved the concept site plan. The motion to disapprove was made by Rita Weaver and seconded; the four voting members present voted yes. The applicant's counsel objected on the record to the board's consideration of written testimony without live witnesses and asked for reconsideration, arguing the project complied with ordinance standards and that the board was substituting judgment for the legislative zoning determination. The board noted that any aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the circuit court within 30 days.

Context: The Riverside proposal sought approval of a 42-unit townhouse concept site plan in an area the county's comprehensive plan and zoning permit for denser residential uses. The Planning Commission had denied the earlier concept site plan, and this hearing was de novo. The Board of Appeals' denial preserves the Planning Commission outcome unless overturned on appeal.