Developers present Glaze Pine mixed-use PUD; Navy and residents raise encroachment and noise concerns

Liberty Home Builders and its development team presented plans April 23 to the St. Mary's County Planning Commission for Glaze Pine, a roughly 210-acre mixed-use planned unit development (PUD/X) on property fronting Hermanville Road and Maryland Route 235 in Lexington Park. The public hearing drew technical presentations from county staff, the developer's consultants and utilities officials, and multiple public speakers who expressed both support for green-building features and sharp concerns about military encroachment and noise.

Bob Boles of the Department of Land Use and Growth Management introduced the application (PUD number ZPUD0614500003) and staff materials, noting the property's split zoning (majority Office Business Park, OBP; also RL and CMX) and that the project proposes a mix of office space (staff cited a concept figure of 1,000,200 square feet) and about 1,100 residential units on approximately 210.3 acres. John Norris, attorney for the applicant, and Guy Curley, owner of Liberty Home Builders, described the project as a "live-work-play" mixed-use community incorporating green-building elements such as gray-water recycling, open space and pedestrian connections; the development team also provided updated landscaping and site sheets and referenced joint land-use study materials from the Navy.

Developer presentations emphasized environmental and design measures. Mark Garner (project manager / LEED AP) and Larry Abel (site and landscape design) outlined street connectivity, pedestrian paths, roundabouts, sidewalks, stormwater impoundment areas, and community amenities including a clubhouse, community plaza and recreation facilities; the team said about 82% of the 210 acres would remain as open or unimproved space in the concept plan. The design team also described planned sidewalks, bike paths, a footbridge connection to nearby recreation land, and proposed low-impact stormwater features and green-roof/landscaping strategies.

The applicant provided technical reports on acoustics and noise attenuation. Clint Barrow of Wyle (acoustical consultant) briefed the commission on aviation-noise metrics (DNL) and recommended an indoor noise target of DNL 45 and a noise-level reduction (NLR) target of about 25 decibels or greater; he reported that sampled unit designs in the application produced modeled NLRs of roughly 26'32 decibels for living rooms, bedrooms and commercial spaces, depending on construction details. Barrow demonstrated sample outdoor and indoor audio tracks to illustrate the insulation benefit of the proposed building-envelope designs.

The project team also presented a wastewater-reuse concept. Steve King (MetCom) described the Marley/Taylor treatment facility and explained state requirements that treatment plants upgrade to enhanced nutrient removal (ENR) standards; he said reuse of highly treated effluent for nonpotable applications (toilet flushing, irrigation and certain commercial uses) could reduce nutrient loads to the Chesapeake Bay and extend wastewater capacity, and estimated that recycling programs in the Lexington Park area could provide substantial volumes (the Navy study mentioned 'a quarter million gallons a day' as a planning-scale example). King said reuse would not substitute for meeting federally required discharge limits but could reduce loads and provide local water-resource benefits.

Staff and legal issues. Department staff and the planning director raised a statutory and zoning compliance question: staff concluded the application did not meet current zoning provisions because Table 50.4 and Schedule 32.1 do not list residential uses as permitted in the OBP zone; Dennis Canavan, director of Land Use and Growth Management, said the application before the commission did not conform to the zoning code's use tables. The applicant's attorney, John Norris, countered that a February 2004 zoning text amendment (Z.O. 3-02) amended Chapter 44 to allow residential planned-unit developments in OBP subject to development-plan approval; Norris argued the later amendment should be read to allow residential PUDX components in OBP and that Chapter 44's PUDX provisions permit a mix of component standards.

Navy comment and public opposition. During the hearing commissioners received a letter dated April 23 from Glenn Ives (signed as a Pax River official) advising that development south of the Naval Air Station fence line and near extended runway centerlines could represent 'a clear example of encroachment' and should be avoided. Members of the Southern Maryland Alliance and residents urged the commission to defer or deny rezoning, arguing the proposal would encroach on the installation and complicate Navy operations and future expansion. Todd Morgan, president of the Southern Maryland Alliance, told the commission the alliance objected to rezoning or related projects in the area because of noise, safety and long-term mission compatibility concerns. Former naval-base executive Tim Smith and other public speakers recounted examples (including other communities) where residential growth near aviation facilities led to conflicts and urged caution.

Developer responses and next steps. The applicant acknowledged the Navy letter and offered to meet with Navy representatives to discuss OPNAV instruction 11010.36B and noise/encroachment guidance; John Norris said the application already incorporated noise-attenuation measures and that the project team had followed recommendations in joint land-use-study materials. The developer also said it would work with staff on clarifying materials requested by the commission (including corrected land-use and building-area tables called out by public commenters) and to provide revised exhibits.

Staff stated it would stand on its report that the application does not comply with existing zoning provisions and recommended denial on that basis unless the commission finds the legal interpretation in favor of residential PUD components in OBP. Commissioners and staff agreed no final action was taken at the hearing and that the item would return for further review; the planning commission indicated it would consider the legal/zoning questions, the Navy's letter, and the applicant's revised materials before any recommendation.