Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lexington Park Boundary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends adding 87 acres to Lexington Park Development District; state planning agency flags watershed sensitivity
Summary
The commission recommended that county commissioners amend the Lexington Park Development District boundary to include about 87 acres (the Johnson property) that staff said were omitted in earlier mapping by mistake. The Maryland Department of Planning returned a "generally consistent" finding but urged caution because the parcel lies in the St.
Get email alerts on the Lexington Park Boundary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The St. Mary's County Planning Commission on May 12 voted to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners amend the Lexington Park Development District master plan maps to include approximately 87 acres described as tax map 42, Parcel 24, Parcels A and B (the Johnson property) within the development district boundary.
Why it matters: Bringing the 87 acres into the Development District aligns the master-plan map with earlier zoning and water-and-sewer decisions affecting the tract and with the property owners' longstanding claims of ownership. The change also affects the property's water-and-sewer category and the range of development that could be permitted there under future approvals.
Background and testimony: Planning staff said the 87 acres had been treated as private property in a court determination in 1988 but were later shown as state-owned in Department of Assessments and Taxation records. The mapping error led to the tract being excluded from the Lexington Park Development District in some later plan iterations. Victor Johnson, who said he is the son of the property owners who owned the land since 1947, described the ownership history and urged the commission to correct the boundary.
Planning staff summarized the procedural history: the Johnson acreage carried RL (residential low-density) zoning and a W3/S3 designation in the county's Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan after a 2005 amendment. Staff said the Board of County Commissioners in 2005 had earlier declined to alter the development-district boundary when several parcels were reviewed together, but that subsequent CWSP actions and an easement to the local utility (METCOM) created a need to reconcile map boundaries.
State review and caution: The Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) returned comments during the statutorily-required prehearing review and rated the proposed comprehensive-plan amendment as "generally consistent with qualifying comments." MDP noted the property is not inside a state-designated Priority Funding Area and sits in the St. Mary's River watershed adjacent to land held by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. The agency urged the county to consider reducing development intensity on the 87-acre parcel or using it as a buffer to protect nearby conservation lands and high-quality streams.
Public comment: Neighbor Mary Broadhurst urged caution, cited local stream and pond features and asked that the county consider protecting watershed resources. Victor Johnson recounted the family's repeated written attempts to clarify ownership and described past administrative and mapping errors.
Commission action and vote: The commission moved to recommend adoption of the comprehensive-plan amendment to add the 87 acres to the Lexington Park Development District and authorized the chair to sign a resolution forwarding the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The motion passed on a recorded vote listed in the transcript as 3-1-1 (three in favor, one opposed, one abstention).
Implications: If the Board of County Commissioners follows the planning commission recommendation, the 87 acres would be formally inside the development district and retain their current RL zoning and the W3/S3 water-and-sewer category unless the board decides otherwise. The Maryland Department of Planning's comments mean any future development proposal will likely face scrutiny to protect streams and adjacent conservation lands; staff and the commission noted that any plan must respect the site's watershed sensitivity and comply with applicable environmental regulations.
Ending: The commission's recommendation will be transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners for final action. MDP recommended careful consideration of the parcel's high-quality watershed context before permitting higher-intensity development there.

