Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Conveyance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission tables Greenmount family conveyance after questions about deed history and private road access
Summary
The Planning Commission tabled a requested family-conveyance minor subdivision (Greenmount) that would add a lot on a private road, after staff and public testimony revealed ownership and deed complexities for the private road and the residual parcel; the commission asked staff to verify deeds and road-notice records before returning the item.
The planning commission voted to table action on the Greenmount Minor Subdivision family conveyance after staff and multiple public commenters raised questions about deed history and ownership of the private road that would serve the new lot.
The request: family conveyance on a private road
Staff (Bob Boles, Department of Land Use and Growth Management) presented a preliminary review of a family-conveyance request to create an additional lot on a private road for the Greenmount property (owner listed as Doris A. Wood). Under St. Mary’s County Subdivision Ordinance 02-02, section 30.11.04 (family conveyance provision), an additional lot on a private road may be approved if explicit criteria are met, including notice to all private-road users, proof of certified mail receipts, a road-maintenance agreement suitable for recordation, limitations on subsequent transfer (typically a restriction on transfer to a third party for five years), and that the grantee be a qualifying family member.
During the staff presentation Boles said that, if approved, the additional lot would bring total lots on the private road to seven. Staff said the applicant had agreed to record a maintenance agreement and other documentation; a favorable draft motion and findings had been prepared by staff.
Issues raised in public comment and by staff
Public commenters who said they own or maintain parts of the private road said they had not received prior notice or that notices had arrived only recently; several neighbors, including the lane owners, objected to the specific lot layout and to a perceived plan to expand use of the private right-of-way. Neighbors said they had been maintaining and upgrading the road and that they had not agreed to allow the proposed change in access or to grant a recordable right to pave or dedicate the road to the county.
William P. Higgs (surveyor, Little Sons of Rest Incorporated) and Robert Wood (applicant’s representative / family member) answered questions about parcel configuration and deed history. During the public exchange staff reported that the original expectation that the parcel was held in a single ownership was not accurate: title searches and deeds showed multiple family members on the deed and the staff recommended further verification.
Action and reasoning
Because of uncertainties about the deeds and about whether certified mail and notice requirements had been met for all private-road users, a commissioner moved to table the application until staff could verify the record titles, deed history, and certified-notice receipts. A second was recorded and the motion passed unanimously; staff will return with clarified deed information, verified notification receipts, and any required corrective steps before the commission considers the family-conveyance approval again.
Key details
- Ordinance cited: St. Mary’s County Subdivision Ordinance (02-02), section 30.11.04 (family conveyance). - Private-road issue: staff stated the additional lot would bring the private-road total to seven lots; ordinance and county policy require certified notices to private-road users and a recorded road-maintenance agreement. - Conditions listed in staff materials (to be completed before final approval) included a maintenance agreement suitable for recordation, plat notes referencing deed recording, and a prohibition on grantee transfer to a third party for five years.
Next steps
Staff will recheck deed records, title/special ownership issues and confirm certified-mail notice receipts and will return the application to the commission with corrected ownership and notification evidence. The commission took no substantive vote on the conveyance itself; the item is tabled pending staff follow-up.
Sources and attribution
Reporting is based on the staff presentation by Bob Boles; surveyor William P. Higgs; applicant representative Robert Wood; and public testimony by neighbors and private-road owners recorded in the meeting transcript.
