Planning Commission directs staff to revise St. Mary's County water and sewer plan, flags map corrections and outstanding disputes

The St. Mary's County Planning Commission on Oct. 22, 2007 directed staff to repackage the July 2007 draft comprehensive water and sewer plan (CWSP) with the edits and map corrections discussed at the public hearing and to forward the revised draft to the Board of County Commissioners for its public hearing.

The decision follows a post‑hearing staff report summarizing testimony from the Aug. 27 public hearing, written comments received during the two‑week record period, and recommended refinements. Jeff (Department of Land Use and Growth Management), the staff presenter, told the commission that “the team is my department, the St. Mary's County Department of Land Use and Growth Management, plus the Metropolitan Commission, plus the Office on Environmental Health, plus the Town of Leonardtown.”

Why it matters: the CWSP assigns sewer and water service categories that affect where public infrastructure can be built and whether properties can connect to public systems. Changes can enable or limit development, correct health hazards, and determine who pays for extensions and off‑site infrastructure.

Staff report and major corrections

Staff presented a three‑part post‑hearing report: (1) a summary of oral testimony from the Aug. 27 hearing with recommended responses, (2) a summary of written comments received after the hearing, and (3) the team’s recommended edits to the draft maps and narrative before the county commissioners’ hearing. Commissioners worked through the report and asked staff to incorporate numerous map corrections and clarifications before transmission.

Key map and text corrections the commission accepted for staff to include in the repackaged draft included: - Correcting service‑area labels for the Landings at Piney Point outparcels so maps reflect the practical limit on new connections (staff recommended showing the undeveloped outlots as S‑6 even though the draft maps showed the entire subdivision as S‑1); staff noted the subdivision is built to its current 95 EDU allocation and that the consent agreement limits further access to the Piney Point force main. - Changing map labels so properties intended to be connected because of documented septic‑system failures (for example, parts of Andover Estates and specific lots referenced in the report) appear in the RSE (rural shared system for environmental hazard) category rather than remaining omitted. - Showing Shetland Acres (Parcel 155) as S‑3D on the sewer map and clarifying remaining EDU restrictions under the consent agreement for Valley Lee area connections. - Adding large on‑site wastewater and water systems (over 5,000 gpd) such as the Charlotte Hall Wawa system to the plan’s tables and maps so the state recognizes the systems in the CWSP.

Commission debate and outstanding dispute: parcels 24A and 24B

Commissioners debated a discrete dispute over two parcels (24A and 24B) located just outside the Lexington Park Development District. During comprehensive rezoning in 2002 the parcels were assigned RL zoning, but a 2005 Board of County Commissioners legislative action changed the water and sewer category for those parcels. Some commissioners argued the draft CWSP should reflect the comprehensive plan and retain rural service (RSD/RWD) for those parcels; staff recommended reconciling the CWSP to the 2005 legislative change (S‑3/W‑3), which is already on the books.

Planning Commissioner Jackie Guazzo (first reference: Jackie Guazzo, Planning Commissioner) moved that “parcels a and b of larger Parcel 24 being outside the development district should remain as shown in the draft plan as category RSD and RWD.” Commissioners discussed whether to force reconciliation to the comprehensive plan boundaries or to reflect the county’s prior legislative action. The commission did not force a unilateral change of the legislative action; instead, the body agreed to record the differing positions in the repackaged draft and to forward the corrected CWSP and the points of disagreement to the Board of County Commissioners for their review and final action.

Technical clarifications and glossary

Commissioners asked staff to add a glossary of local terms (for example, “Banneker line,” “consent agreement,” “bay interceptor”) as an appendix to the repackaged CWSP and to include the Leonardtown commissioners’ letter, health‑department memos about failed septic systems, and other appendices identified in the post‑hearing report. One element staff agreed to restore in the narrative was stronger language on the Bay Interceptor based on the 1993 plan, including the 12/28/1977 agreement language describing conveyance and historic capacity and the restriction that new connections may be limited to parcels abutting the interceptor as of 08/01/1990.

What the record shows about health hazards and remedies

Staff noted the CWSP identifies problem areas and supports options including public sewer extensions only to correct documented health or environmental hazards, or via permitted rural shared systems (for example, Forest Farm/RSS designations). Examples discussed: Maple Run (septic failures reported but not formally identified as a problem area in the draft), Andover Estates (properties found to have failed septic systems; staff recommended RSE classification so they can be included in the Piney Point pump‑over project), and the Shetland Acres trailer park (nonfunctional septic systems that staff recommended be shown as S‑3D but remain subject to consent agreement EDU limits).

Formal action and next steps

The Planning Commission voted to direct staff to repackage the draft CWSP incorporating the agreed edits identified in the Oct. 22 post‑hearing discussion and to authorize the chair to sign a resolution transmitting the modified CWSP to the Board of County Commissioners for their public hearing. The motion passed with no recorded opposition.

Remaining items for county review

Several disagreements and clarifications will be transmitted for the county commissioners’ decision: whether the CWSP should reflect the 2005 legislative category change or remain aligned to the comprehensive plan boundaries for parcels 24A/24B; several map corrections and parcel‑level service‑area reassessments; and the restored Bay Interceptor policy text staff proposes to reinsert. Staff will also include the proposed glossary and the appended letters and memos cited in the post‑hearing report.

Ending note

Staff told the commission the repackaged draft will reflect the agreed edits and appended materials and will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for a subsequent public hearing. The commission asked staff to make the corrections and to continue outreach on any outstanding disputes before the Board’s review.