Planning Commission continues Saint Mary's Crossing PUD hearing after developer revises plan to add workforce housing and donate school site

The St. Mary's County Planning Commission on Oct. 22, 2007 continued public hearings on Planned Unit Development 06‑1450004 (Saint Mary's Crossing, 249.48 acres) and the associated developer rights and responsibilities agreement to Nov. 26, 2007 to allow staff and the applicant additional time to review revised submittals.

What was before the commission: Bob Boles (Department of Land Use and Growth Management) summarized the case history: the public hearing was opened Aug. 2007 and left open; the applicant later submitted a revised plan and additional documentation addressing workforce housing, traffic, a second access, and other matters. Boles asked the commission to accept a presentation and to continue the formal hearing until Nov. 26 so staff could complete its review.

Developer changes and civic benefits

John Norris (attorney for the applicant, Norris and Dutta Rupp, P.C.) told the commission the developer, Saint Mary's Crossing LLC, revised its plan to respond to concerns raised at the August hearing and by staff. Key changes the applicant submitted include: - Increased total dwelling units from 717 to 868 (density rising from roughly 2.9 to 3.5 units per acre). - A 26‑acre school site to be donated to the Board of Education; stormwater management and forest conservation for the school site are to be provided outside the donated acreage. - Revisions in product mix intended to add a significant amount of rental and for‑sale units marketed toward the county’s workforce, including a new “Heritage” multifamily series, reduced townhouse footprints in places, and villa duplexes.

“[T]he county has a desperate need for workforce housing,” John Norris said, and the applicant said its changes aim to supply housing affordable to teachers, police officers and other local workers while still funding the off‑site infrastructure necessary to serve the property.

Fiscal and fee debate: TDRs and impact fees

Economics Research Associates (ERA) delivered an independent affordability analysis. Molly McKay, Senior Associate, summarized ERA’s method and findings: the analysis modeled the effect of differing fee structures (county‑proposed fees including transfer‑of‑development‑rights (TDR) costs versus the developer’s proposed fee schedule) on achievable sales and rents and on the share of units that meet the county’s workforce housing definition (household incomes at 45–100% of county median income).

ERA’s headline findings, as presented to the commission: - If the developer‑proposed fee structure in the developer rights and responsibilities agreement is used (which includes a lower additional traffic/impact fee of $2,000 rather than the $8,000 proposed by Public Works and a waiver or different treatment of TDR charges), ERA estimated roughly 80% of the project’s units could meet the county’s workforce housing thresholds. - If the county requires the higher additional impact fee ($8,000) and applies the standard TDR charge (the current TDR benchmark cited by counsel was approximately $18,000 per TDR spread pro rata across units), the share of units affordable to the workforce cohort would fall substantially (ERA presented numbers showing a drop in the share of workforce‑affordable units to roughly the low‑to‑mid‑60% range under the higher fee/TDR scenario).

ERA also showed the smaller unit types (16‑foot townhouses and smaller multifamily units) carry a higher per‑square‑foot fee burden when a flat per‑unit TDR or large impact fee is applied uniformly; those smallest units are therefore the most sensitive to fee increases and the most likely to be priced out of the workforce band.

Infrastructure and mitigation obligations

The applicant and staff reiterated that significant off‑site infrastructure will be needed: sewer extension and MetCom connections, a water tower and production wells, road widening on St. Andrews Church Road, and other mitigation measures (including possible funding for a traffic signal at St. Andrews Lane if permitted). Public Works initially calculated an $8,000 additional impact fee; the developer offered a $2,000 additional impact fee in the draft developer rights and responsibilities agreement. The developer argued that the project provides community benefits (school site donation, public water/sewer extension, new housing supply) that offset a higher per‑unit fee recommendation.

Formal action and next steps

The Planning Commission voted to continue the public hearings on PUD 06‑1450004 (Saint Mary's Crossing) and the developer rights and responsibilities agreement (DRA 07‑14600001) until Nov. 26, 2007 to allow staff to review the newly submitted materials and to allow commissioners time to consider traffic, fiscal and affordability analyses. The motion to continue carried with no recorded opposition.

Why this matter remains consequential

The case combines land‑use rezoning, infrastructure commitments and an affordability trade‑off: higher per‑unit fees and required TDR purchases increase public revenue but reduce the number of units that hit workforce affordability targets; lower fees maintain a higher share of workforce‑affordable units but shift more cost risk and mitigation obligations to the county or require larger developer up‑front investments. The commission asked staff to expedite review of the revised plan, DRA and technical appendices before the Nov. 26 continued hearing.