St. Mary’s Planning Commission approves concept plan for ‘Southern Maryland Bounty’ after debate over buffers and stormwater

The St. Mary’s County Planning Commission approved a concept site plan for “Southern Maryland Bounty,” a proposed farmers market and horticultural facility near Route 235, by a 4–2 vote after an extended debate about required buffers and whether the site’s innovative stormwater systems meet state Environmental Site Design (ESD) requirements.

Commission Chair Martin Evans and staff recommended concept approval, while Commissioners Pamela Guazzo and Hayden opposed the motion, saying the plan does not preserve a long‑term buffer to protect adjacent residential parcels. The motion passed on a roll call: four in favor, two opposed.

The plan is presented as two buildings: one for a farmers market/retail operation and one for a horticultural facility (trees, shrubs) with some wholesale activity. Developer representatives told the commission the site is intended to operate year‑round and would include a range of ESD measures, including a permeable/reinforced “clover” parking surface and a larger rainwater‑harvesting and cistern system to capture runoff for irrigation.

Billy Mahaffey, of Mahaffey & Associates, representing the developer, and Dr. Robert Massey, who led the site’s agronomic and planting design effort, described the project as environmentally focused and said the design team is working with the Soil Conservation Service and the University of Maryland Extension. Mahaffey said the developer intends to plant about 250 fruit trees (Asian pears were cited) around the site and to use rainwater harvesting to meet irrigation demand.

John Groger, deputy director of St. Mary’s County Public Works and Transportation, told commissioners that the county’s stormwater regulations were updated in 2009 and that this site currently is designed to earlier (2001) standards. Groger said the permeable pavement/reinforced turf approach proposed “does not meet ESD requirements, and thus will only partially supplement the rainwater harvesting.” He said that could require additional ESD practices or redesign of the pavement system when the detailed plans are submitted.

Groger also explained the county’s grandfathering rules for older stormwater approvals, noting sites with preliminary approval before 2010 must meet specified final‑approval and construction deadlines to retain grandfathered status.

Commissioner Pamela Guazzo objected to approving the concept without a firmer commitment on a planted buffer between the commercial‑scale market and the residential lots behind the site. “I’m going to be very unpopular, and I will not vote for this, because, I cannot get enough of you to look to the future that this property will need a buffer,” Guazzo said during discussion, arguing the narrow strip of trees shown on the concept will be insufficient if the building is later reused for a higher‑intensity commercial use.

Chair Evans and other supporters said the use as presented is classified by the zoning ordinance as low‑intensity agricultural/farm market activity, which under the county’s buffer‑yard schedule does not automatically trigger a C buffer. Evans said the concept plan is unusually complete and noted that conditions on future site plan approvals would still allow staff and the commission to require changes if the use or design changes.

Commissioner Siebert and others pressed for technical follow‑up on the permeable surface’s structural capability under vehicle traffic and whether the clover turf would survive heavy truck or delivery use; Groger said staff will require detailed structural and ESD calculations during final engineering review and that stormwater components will be subject to an inspection and maintenance agreement (inspections one year after construction, then every three years).

Dr. Robert Massey described the proposed clover/reinforced turf surface and the proposed maintenance and planting program, including seasonal management of clover and supplemental grasses to maintain year‑round cover. The applicant said the koi pond shown on the concept is an amenity and not part of the stormwater capture system; the developer acknowledged the pond’s depth and safety features will be reviewed under building code requirements.

After nearly two hours of technical discussion and public‑record exchanges among staff, the engineer and the project team, the commission voted to approve the concept plan. The final design will return to staff and, depending on changes, may trigger additional review steps before final site plan approval.

Charging documents and references discussed during the hearing included the county zoning ordinance (section 60.5.4), county buffer yard schedule (chapter 63, schedule 63.3.b) and the county’s stormwater/Erosion and Sediment Control standards (noted updates from 2001 to 2009). Developers and staff agreed to supply detailed engineering and ESD calculations in subsequent submissions.