Planning commission approves 100‑foot AutoZone facade in Lusby amid local opposition to larger Lusby projects
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
The commission approved an architectural review application to allow a 100‑foot front facade for the proposed Lusby AutoZone, finding it met design standards despite the Lusby Town Center ordinance 50‑foot limit. The vote was unanimous; residents raised broader concerns about duplicate businesses and a separate large apartment project in Lusby.
The Calvert County Planning Commission on Feb. 27 approved an architectural review application for a proposed AutoZone at 11749 H G Truman Road in the Lusby Commons shopping center, allowing a front building facade up to 100 feet in length where the Lusby Town Center zoning ordinance limits the facade to 50 feet unless extended by the commission.
Jessica Catano, Planner 3 with the county’s Department of Planning and Zoning, told the commission that staff "does recommend the approval of the building facade up to 100 feet in length based on the design needs of Lusby AutoZone." Staff found the proposal consistent with Lusby Town Center design guidelines except for the facade‑length standard and said the proposal met the ordinance’s design conditions: approximately 76% ground‑floor activation through awnings, masonry features and display windows; an 8‑foot‑wide sidewalk along the entire front facade tying into the existing pedestrian network; and internal pedestrian walkways. The commission approved the application; the transcript records the vote passed "7 to nothing."
Why it matters: the Lusby Commons pad site previously had a preconcept plan accepted by the county’s technical evaluation group, and the approval allows the store design to exceed the default facade length in exchange for articulated building materials and pedestrian features. The project address is listed in county documents as Tax Map 42, Parcel 111 in Lusby.
Public comment and local concerns: multiple residents spoke during public comment with concerns about broader development in Lusby. Sean McGuire, representing Save Lusby Incorporated, characterized an unrelated nearby proposal (referred to in public remarks as the "Leslie Villas" or Lusby Village project) as "a 200 plus unit through 30 plus acre apartment complex right in the middle of Lusby," and said his group is pursuing a court appeal of a prior planning decision. Megan Farringer, a Lusby resident, asked why the commission would approve another auto‑parts retailer in an area that already has a competing store across the street and urged the commission to consider other business types such as a gym or community facilities.
What was decided: the commission accepted staff’s recommendation and approved the architectural review application and facade length extension. Staff noted that the Lusby Architectural Review Committee lacked a quorum and the project was reviewed administratively before coming to the commission.
Next steps: with the planning commission approval, the applicant proceeds as conditioned by the site‑plan process. Any appeals or legal actions mentioned by public commenters would proceed through the courts independent of this approval.