Planning commission reaffirms approvals for two family‑conveyance subdivisions on Ritchie Road after neighbors raise road‑maintenance concerns

At its Feb. 12 meeting, the St. Mary's County Planning Commission voted to reaffirm earlier approvals for two family‑conveyance minor subdivisions on Ritchie Road — Subdivision 06110000096 (Land of David Larson) and Subdivision 061100027 (Usher subdivision) — after staff told the commission some adjoining property owners had been misdirected to the wrong meeting and asked to speak tonight.

Why it matters: neighbors and commissioners debated whether the plats qualify for family‑conveyance treatment and whether private‑road conditions and recorded road‑maintenance agreements adequately protect safety and access as additional lots are added to an existing private road.

Staff presentation and reconsideration

Planning staff told the commission that at the Jan. 22 hearings the commission approved the two family‑conveyance items but that staff later received notice that some adjacent property owners had mistakenly been sent to a different meeting room and therefore missed the hearing. Bob Bowles, a staff member, said the county remailed notice for the Feb. 12 meeting and added both items to the agenda; he told commissioners, "we have no change to our staff reports as they stand." The commission voted to reopen both matters for additional public testimony.

Neighbor concerns and staff replies

Several neighbors and nearby landowners spoke. Joe Capristo, an adjoining property owner, said he believes the Larson application is not eligible for family‑conveyance treatment and should be processed as a regular subdivision. Capristo argued that the parcel is larger than the size limits for the family‑conveyance provision and that the private road would need to be upgraded to county specifications if it were a regular subdivision. He also questioned the practical enforceability of recorded road‑maintenance agreements.

Surveyor Jerry Nuckabee acknowledged a mailing error and said the earlier notices had been sent to 27 property owners; he said that for the Usher subdivision the applicants had since obtained a single signed road‑maintenance agreement among current users.

Several residents who use or live near the private portion of Ritchie Road testified about road condition and maintenance. Catherine Coble, who said she lives at 44350 Ritchie Road, told the commission, "The road is always kept up" and opposed denying the applicants' children the ability to build. Brian Jones, who identified himself as the road coordinator for Usher Lane, said the neighborhood has a signed road‑maintenance agreement that had not been recorded at the time of the first hearing but was in place.

Applicant and technical details

Applicant David Larson, who gave his address as 44294 Ritchie Road, clarified that the private portion of Ritchie Road serving the subdivision is about 360 feet long, that the formal right‑of‑way is 25 feet, and that the gravel travel surface is roughly 12 feet wide. Opponents had described the traveled way as closer to 10 feet in places, while other speakers said pull‑outs exist and the road is being maintained by residents.

Commission discussion and outcome

Commissioners and staff debated two issues: whether the properties met the county's family‑conveyance provisions as applied in past cases, and whether recorded road‑maintenance agreements should be required from all users of a private road before plats are recorded. Planning staff and one staff presenter explained that the subdivision regulations include multiple provisions intended to allow some flexibility for family situations and that the commission has evaluated such requests on a case‑by‑case basis.

After hearing additional testimony, the commission first voted to formally reconsider the earlier approvals and then voted to reaffirm the earlier approvals for both the Larson and Usher family‑conveyance applications. The commission's minutes record a condition tied to the Larson subdivision: agreements ensuring access to, use of, and maintenance of the private road must be recorded prior to recordation of the plat.

What the commission directed next

Commissioners expressed ongoing concern about how road‑maintenance agreements operate in practice. Several commissioners and speakers urged staff to develop consistent language and examples of road‑maintenance agreements and to examine enforceability and the practical limits of county authority. At the end of the meeting a commissioner asked staff to assemble example agreements for review at a future meeting.

The plats remain subject to the recorded‑agreement condition and any administrative requirements before plat recordation; staff said their reports themselves were unchanged from the January hearings.

Ending

The commission closed the two cases after reaffirming approval and directed staff to follow up on the road‑maintenance agreement language and the legal/enforceability questions raised during testimony. Those follow‑up items may inform future family‑conveyance requests on private roads in St. Mary's County.