Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission tables Glazed Pine PUD after legal, compatibility questions
Summary
The St. Mary's County Planning Commission on May 14 deferred action on a proposed mixed‑use Planned Unit Development (PUDX) for the Glazed Pine property after staff said the rezoning did not comply with multiple sections of the county's zoning ordinance and commissioners requested additional legal analysis and a staff response to a Navy letter.
The St. Mary's County Planning Commission on May 14 tabled a decision on PUD application 06-14500003 (Glazed Pine), submitted by Liberty Home Builders (owner Guy Curley) and represented by N G O Engineering, after staff advised the application does not comply with multiple provisions of the county's comprehensive zoning ordinance and commissioners asked for additional legal analysis and clarification.
Staff summary: Bob Boles of the Department of Land Use and Growth Management told the commission that "staff finds that the rezoning of the land for the creation of a planned unit development mixed use floating zone does not comply with the purpose clause of the PUDX of the comprehensive zoning ordinance" and recommended deferral until the zoning ordinance is amended to explicitly allow residential uses in the Office Business Park (OBP) zone. Boles said the application also raised conflicts under sections the staff cited, and recommended denial if the ordinance is not amended.
Why it matters: The application seeks to create a mixed residential-and-commercial floating PUDX in the Lexington Park development district. Commissioners said the parcel's proximity to Patuxent River Naval Air Station (Pax River) and Webster Field, and the county's existing zoning, raise compatibility and encroachment concerns that affect the county's planning and the Navy's mission protections.
What commissioners said: Several commissioners said they had not had time to analyze a recently submitted attorney's letter from John Norris and a letter from Captain Ives at Pax River. Commissioner Wazley told the panel, "my vote is no. It's not. It is not compatible with its neighbor," and urged caution given the base's presence. Other commissioners asked staff for a written, section‑by‑section explanation of the claimed ordinance conflicts; one commissioner asked staff to "go over the tape again" to ensure an accurate minutes record of prior testimony and exchanges with the applicant.
Applicant response: Attorney John Norris (Norris & Detterer) said the letter submitted on behalf of the applicant addresses the staff and Navy comments and cites case law the applicant believes supports the application. Norris asked that planning staff or the county attorney respond in writing to the legal arguments.
Clarifying points: Commissioners and staff discussed whether residential use is prohibited in the OBP zone under current ordinance language, whether the PUDX vehicle the applicant used is appropriate, and whether prior 2003 amendments to the ordinance affected the allowable uses. Commissioners also raised the ongoing air installation compatibility (AICUZ/AICZ) study and the county's MOU with the Navy as context that could alter planning decisions for the development district.
Outcome and next steps: The commission voted to table the matter to the next meeting to give members time to review the attorney's submission and for staff to provide a written, section‑by‑section response addressing the ordinance provisions cited. No formal finding or vote on the rezoning was recorded on May 14.
Ending note: Commissioners who urged further review said they would prefer staff provide a written response to the legal points and noted the issue touches countywide policies (zoning, comprehensive plan, and development district objectives) as well as base compatibility considerations.
