Limited Time Offer. Become a Founder Member Now!

Planning commission grants final approvals for three Woods at Myrtle Point subdivisions with traffic, HOA and bonding conditions

February 07, 2025 | St. Mary's County, Maryland


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Planning commission grants final approvals for three Woods at Myrtle Point subdivisions with traffic, HOA and bonding conditions
The St. Mary's County Planning Commission on Oct. 14 approved final subdivision plans for three portions of The Woods at Myrtle Point, accepting staff findings while adding conditions tied to traffic mitigation, stormwater compliance and community facilities.

The commission voted to approve:
- SSUB 04-12000009 (The Woods at Myrtle Point, Section 1, Phase 2) — final approval for 68 lots, with the condition that 85 percent of building permits for Section 1, Phase 1 must be pulled before issuing building permits for Phase 2; stormwater management must meet current standards.
- SSUB 41200020 (The Woods at Myrtle Point, Section 1, Phase 3) — final approval for 21 lots, with the condition that road improvements at the intersection of Patuxent Boulevard and Maryland Route 4 be finished and a full-service traffic signal built and able to be operational before the tenth house permit in Phase 3 is issued; stormwater management must meet current standards.
- SSUB 41200032 (The Woods at Myrtle Point, Sections 4, 5 and 6) — final approval for 81 lots, with the condition that the developer return to the Planning Commission before grading or building permits are issued for those sections to present a plan and schedule for community facilities; if more than a year passes before work on Sections 4'0'6 begins, the developer must update the commission on lot disposition and community-facility planning.

The meeting included extended public comment from residents of Phase 1, who described unfinished houses, failed maintenance of common areas and uncompleted punch-list work after the home-building company ceased operations in August. Several homeowners said they had paid initial HOA capital contributions (a $1,500 one-time fee plus a prorated $400 initial assessment cited by residents) and have been maintaining common areas themselves.

Developer Paul Summers and his attorney, Christopher Longmore, told the commission that Summers had reorganized the development ownership (P. F. Summers Myrtle Point LLC) and was working with Fulton Bank to post a letter of credit to fund traffic and infrastructure obligations. Summers said the bank agreed to post an interim letter of credit (roughly $530,000'0around $540,000) to secure construction of traffic-related geometrics and signal work that the State Highway Administration had said was warranted at the Route 4/Patuxent Boulevard intersection. The developer said plans for an acceleration lane (about 1,300 linear feet) and a free right turn lane are part of the mitigation package; state correspondence previously indicated the full signal would be required by the "124th" lot, language Summers said will be interpreted to mean the 124th home in the project regardless of sectioning.

Commissioners and staff explored several community concerns raised during public comment: whether the builder's dissolution left insufficient money to complete roads and common-area maintenance, the status and structure of the homeowners association and whether residents could be given seats on the HOA board. Summers said he had proposed that two homeowners be added to HOA oversight (one as treasurer) and that the bank and he would work to provide transparency in HOA governance and to address punch-list and maintenance items.

Traffic mitigation and timing were a central focus. The county's traffic consultant and State Highway official had recommended the signal be constructed and could be placed on flashing mode until traffic warrants activated full signal operation; the developer has posted funds and plans are under state review. Commissioners conditioned approvals so that the traffic signal and associated geometric changes be installed and able to operate before specified build triggers in Phase 3.

Commissioners made the approvals after deliberation and explicit motions. Each motion included findings that stormwater management met current county requirements and added the conditions described above. The votes on all three subdivision motions were recorded in the meeting as approved and were entered on the record.

View full meeting

This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.

View full meeting

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Maryland articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI