Board of Appeals hears conditional-use application for Queen Tree cell tower in Mechanicsville

The St. Mary's County Board of Appeals on May 7 took testimony and staff presentations on a conditional‑use application for the Queen Tree communication tower proposed at 41220 Oakville Road in Mechanicsville.

The application, filed for a 16.45‑acre parcel owned by Heritage Oak Farm Partnership, requests approval under the county Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 25) for a commercial communication tower. Harry Knight of Land Use and Growth Management described the site as a commercial nursery with a proposed 80‑by‑80‑foot lease area, a 60‑by‑60‑foot equipment pad, five equipment shelters, a 10‑foot chain‑link fence and a 10‑foot‑wide access road into the forested area. "All required agency reviews for the commercial site plan are currently in process," Knight said.

Why it matters: The proposal raises routine zoning and environmental questions for nearby residents — tree clearing, visual impact, stormwater controls and whether the tower will be configured for next‑generation wireless (often described as "5G"). The board’s review will determine whether the conditional‑use standards for the Rural Preservation District are met and what conditions, if any, to attach to approval.

Key details and discussion

- Location and zoning: Knight identified the parcel as tax map 14, grid 22, parcel 79 and said the land‑use designation is Rural Preservation (the presentation materials in the record list zoning and land‑use maps). The site is described as a commercial nursery and garden center with the tower planned in an interior wooded area behind existing commercial uses.

- Site buildout: Knight described an 80‑by‑80 foot lease area surrounded by existing forest, a 60‑by‑60 foot equipment pad within that lease area, five equipment shelters, a surrounding 10‑foot chain‑link fence and a new roughly 10‑foot‑wide road to connect to existing vehicular access.

- Stormwater: The plan includes a micro‑bioretention stormwater facility outside the tower fence. Knight said, "they are not designed to hold water more than 48 hours," and explained the county's stormwater ordinance requires a one‑year maintenance inspection after installation and then three‑year intervals thereafter; commercial inspections are typically performed by the Department of Public Works — Transportation, which may use third‑party inspectors such as Maryland Environmental Services.

- Vegetative buffer and variance: The applicant submitted a variance letter about the buffer requirement (the ordinance language cited in the presentation calls for two rows of fast‑growing evergreens around a tower enclosure but reserves the county's right to set different vegetative buffers). The applicant’s team asked the board to consider whether existing forested context provides adequate buffering instead of planting new rows. Knight and applicant representatives indicated that the buffer question will be clarified through site‑plan review; the variance was not scheduled for a separate hearing that evening.

- 5G compatibility and tree heights: Board members asked whether the tower would be 5G‑compatible and how tall the remaining trees are relative to the tower. Knight and others said the applicant's presentation would address 5G compatibility; Knight observed the aerial photos show evergreens to the northwest and hardwoods to the southeast. The transcript contains inconsistent height figures for the proposed tower (both "99 feet" and a reference to "199" appear in the record); the applicant's materials in the case file should be treated as authoritative for the precise height.

- Procedure and next steps: Staff said agency reviews for the commercial site plan remain in process. The hearing was delayed partway through while applicants and staff worked to reconnect remotely; no vote or final action was taken that evening. The board indicated it would hear the applicant presentation and public testimony before deliberating.

No formal action

The board did not take a formal vote or issue a decision during the portion of the hearing in the transcript provided. The case remained under review, with agency approvals pending and the vegetative buffer/variance issue left for further consideration during site‑plan review or a subsequent proceeding.

Ending

Staff noted application exhibits and presentations are available in the BoardDocs case file for the May 7 Board of Appeals hearing. The board will continue review after the applicant presentation and public testimony; a decision or any conditions would be recorded in subsequent minutes if and when the board acts.