Planning Commission opens public hearing on amending building-height rules in St. Mary's County zoning schedule

Saint Mary's County Planning Commission — March 12, 2007 — The Planning Commission opened a public hearing March 12 on a zoning text amendment to Chapter 32 (Property Development Regulations), Schedule 32.1 (Development Standards) that would relocate and revise a footnote on maximum building heights, add a site-by-site compliance trigger, require sprinklers for taller buildings, and correct a footnote spelling error.

Planning staff member Michael Canavan told the commission the amendment would move the existing footnote (currently shown in a table row) to individual zone height limits and replace part of the existing language with a renumbered footnote. Under the proposed wording read into the record, “principal structures may be erected to a maximum height of 50 feet when the side and the rear yards are increased 1 foot for each foot of height in excess of the height restrictions of the zone,” and “existing buildings constructed as of the effective date of this amendment are not considered a nonconforming building height.” Canavan also read language (to be renumbered as footnote 12) that retains the existing provision for site-by-site analysis for compliance with Chapter 43 and states that “structures with a building height greater than 45 feet shall install an approved sprinkler system.” He noted communication towers remain regulated under Chapter 51 and are exempt from Schedule 32.1 height limits. Canavan also described a minor spelling correction to footnote 10 (public "continuous" sidewalk language).

The amendment drew questions and objections during the hearing. Commissioner Miss Guaiza asked why the amendment would allow 50-foot buildings in zones with current 40-foot maximums. Canavan said staff proposed the 50-foot threshold in part because some existing buildings in county corridors have effectively exceeded 40 feet by using setback-based allowances, and the 50-foot allowance would accommodate similar four-story buildings with pitched roofs without classifying them as nonconforming. Canavan read the county rule for measurement from Chapter 9 to explain how roof types affect measured height.

Members of the public who addressed the commission urged caution. Michael Fry of California, Md., said leaving existing taller buildings off the nonconforming list addressed those properties but that he did not believe a general increase to 50 feet “is going to add anything” to the community. Tammy Seabacher of California, Md., said she did not understand the reason for raising the limit from 40 to 50 and preferred keeping the 40-foot intent. Eric Knight, a resident commenter, urged staff to write a more specific footnote addressing grandfathered buildings if the commission wished to remove the “cloud” of nonconformity for existing structures.

Chair remarks and subsequent discussion clarified the status of existing buildings: the text as proposed would explicitly state that buildings exceeding the current limit as of the amendment’s effective date would not be treated as nonconforming, though no provision would allow them to grow taller than their existing height. Commissioners and staff discussed practical effects including floor-area-ratio (FAR) transfers (TDRs) and whether certain large buildings along the Route 235 corridor had already taken advantage of setback rules to exceed 40 feet.

No ordinance change was adopted at the meeting. After public comment the commission voted to leave the public hearing open for 10 days to receive written responses from the public before further action; the commission did not take a final vote on the text amendment at the March 12 meeting.

The commission will consider public written comments received during the 10-day period and return the amendment language (including the renumbered footnote text and the sidewalk spelling correction) to a future meeting for further deliberation and possible motion to forward to the County Commissioners.

Ending: The public hearing remains open and the Planning Commission asked staff to prepare a revised draft showing the relocated footnote language and the proposed footnote 12 wording for the commission’s next meeting; no final bill or ordinance was approved March 12.