Planning commission hears Saint Mary's Crossing PUD; residents press traffic and safety concerns, hearing continued to Oct. 22

The Saint Mary's County Planning Commission on Aug. 27 heard a lengthy presentation and public comment on Saint Mary's Crossing, a proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) on roughly 249.48 acres west of Indian Bridge Road. The applicant seeks a floating PUD-R rezoning and a Development Rights and Responsibilities Agreement (DRARA) that together would allow a mix of housing types, a school site donation and related infrastructure.

Project in brief

Applicant materials and the project team presented a concept for up to 717 residential units in a mix of product types (two-bedroom townhomes, three-bedroom rear‑garage townhomes, villa-style duplexes and larger detached ‘‘manor’’ homes). The plan shows two development phases, a donated school parcel described in materials as approximately 26 acres (applicant materials also list an alternate 28‑acre figure that includes a utility easement area), an on-site well and water tower intended to reach the Patapsco/Tapasco aquifer, internal roundabout intersections, a community building and pool, and a proposed crossing of an existing dam/road at a large pond in the Saint Marys River watershed.

Staff, technical and agency points

Bob Boles of the county planning staff introduced the rezoning and DRARA hearings and set out required findings for a PUD under the zoning ordinance. Engineer John Norris (NG & O Engineering) described environmental constraints, a proposed development envelope that preserves roughly 44% of the site in open/buffer areas (or about 56% if the school parcel is included as open land), and a circulation hierarchy of public and private streets. He said staff and the applicant had sought agency input on the pond/dam crossing and that a Corps/MDE wetlands and dam-safety review would be required for any permanent reconfiguration of the dam/road.

Architect Daniel Ball presented conceptual building elevations and unit footprints spanning modest townhomes (~1,250–1,400 sq ft) to detached manor units (~2,500–3,000 sq ft); the applicant said streetscape consistency and a mix of product types were deliberate design objectives.

Traffic and public works

A traffic-impact study prepared for the full buildout (717 units plus a 650‑student elementary school assumption) estimated roughly 500 PM peak-hour trips and about 400 AM peak-hour trips attributable to the project; the study included assumed traffic from other planned nearby developments. The study found some intersections with existing failing service levels (Route 4 at Wildwood Parkway) and concluded Wildwood Parkway/Maryland Route 4 meets signal warrants and should be signalized; the State Highway Administration had indicated conditional concurrence for certain entrance improvements for the project—s first 350 units but final approvals would follow planning approvals.

Department of Public Works staff advised the commission that Route 4 will require future capacity upgrades and provided a preliminary range of developer-impact cost estimates that vary widely depending on the scope analyzed; staff presented a per-unit fee-in-lieu range roughly between $2,000 and $8,000 per dwelling unit for Route 4 improvements depending on assumptions and the mitigation area used for calculation. Public Works also raised concern about the project—s proximity to the county landfill expansion area and requested that disclosure be provided to purchasers; the county noted buffers required under landfill regulations (500‑foot vegetated buffer; 1,500‑foot planning considerations).

Board of Education and school-site issues

Representatives for the Board of Education confirmed ongoing negotiations with the applicant on the donated school parcel and asked that a staff-recommended condition be clarified: the Board asked that if the private roadway connecting the eastern portion of the property to Old Saint Andrews Church Road is improved to public standards prior to certain phases, the Johnson Pond Lane access be closed and reverted so the Board receives the full intended width for the school parcel. The Board said the original agreement anticipated the parcel might support either an elementary or a middle school; the Board requested the design keep that flexibility if the Johnson Pond Lane easement reverts prior to school construction.

Public testimony

More than a dozen nearby residents testified. The comments concentrated on traffic safety at the existing Saint Andrews Lane / Maryland Route 4 intersection, sight-distance limitations on the curve near Saint Andrews Church, the prospect of thousands of new daily vehicle trips, concerns about the dam/pond crossing and MDE permits, and environmental protections for the Saint Marys River watershed and species (including DNR comments on the eastern narrow-mouthed toad habitat cited by residents). Several residents asked the commission to require signalization and turn-lane work before additional approvals or home sales, and to require stronger guarantees for the second access.

Timing and procedural outcome

After presentations and public testimony the Planning Commission voted to continue both the PUD rezoning and the developer's rights and responsibilities (DRARA) hearings to Oct. 22, 2007, and left the record open for additional written submissions in the interim. Commissioners and staff indicated significant outstanding technical issues (traffic mitigation detail, pond/dam permitting, stormwater management, landfill adjacency/disclosures, school-site conveyance details and specific wording of DRARA commitments) that would be addressed in follow-up reports and materials prior to the commission—s recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.

Why this matters

If approved, the PUD would add hundreds of housing units and a donated school site along a major county corridor, with near‑term consequences for traffic, stormwater management, watershed health and county capital needs. Public Works flagged the project—s contribution to capacity needs on Maryland Route 4; Board of Education and residents flagged school access and safety questions; environmental agencies will need to review dam and wetlands permits for any proposed pond/dam modification.

Next steps

The hearings were continued to Oct. 22, 2007; the applicant and staff will file technical revisions, and the commission expects formal mitigation commitments and clearer drafter language for the DRARA before a final recommendation. Written comments submitted before the continuation date will form part of the official hearing record.