Planning Commission forwards 2.25% annual growth policy and related zoning changes to county commissioners

The St. Mary’s County Planning Commission on June 9 recommended that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an annual growth policy that sets the countywide residential growth factor at 2.25 percent and forwarded implementing zoning and subdivision ordinance text for the commissioners’ consideration.

Phil Canavan, planning staff, summarized the introduced policy and related text amendments. The annual growth policy would designate a growth area and a rural preservation area and guide 70 percent of intended residential development into designated growth areas with a maximum of 30 percent allocated to the rural preservation area. Staff said the first‑year baseline would allow roughly 941 dwelling units countywide and that the rural preservation area cap would limit the rural share of that total to 30 percent.

Canavan told the commission that the policy includes annual allocations and a procedure for assigning dwelling‑unit slots to subdivisions or multifamily concept plans. Under the introduced text, single developments would be limited in how many lots could be apportioned annually (for example: up to 25 lots per year for developments under 100 lots, up to 30 per year for developments around 200 lots, and up to 40 per year for larger subdivisions). Multifamily allotments would be capped at 100 units per year per multi‑family proposal.

Commission discussion centered on three unresolved issues staff had flagged: whether school‑seat mitigation should be permitted, how to treat elementary‑school attendance districts when making adequacy findings, and whether to use a single countywide elementary district versus two districts (north/south) or retain multiple attendance zones. Members repeatedly asked for clarity on how the Board of Education’s recent proposal (which suggested a 103% cap in non‑growth areas and 108% in growth areas for elementary schools) would interact with the growth policy. Several commissioners expressed concern that adopting different percent‑of‑capacity thresholds for different schools or districts would complicate the policy; others said the school‑system input should be considered by the County Commissioners.

Planning Commission member motioned to forward the staff report with agreed changes and to authorize the chair to sign the resolution, while noting those unresolved issues for the Board of County Commissioners. The commission voted to forward the legislation as amended and requested that the unresolved school‑capacity and mitigation questions be considered during the county‑level hearings.

The Planning Commission record shows the motion to approve the annual growth policy was made by Commissioner Evans, seconded by Miss Neil, and carried with no opposition. A second motion to forward the implementing zoning and subdivision ordinance amendments was made by Miss Guaza and seconded by Commissioner Thompson; that motion also carried with no opposition. The commission instructed staff to include the record of Board of Education submissions and to document that several members wish to consider a two‑district approach for elementary schools when the County Commissioners schedule hearings.

Staff will present the record and proposed ordinance language to the county commissioners for public hearings and final action.