Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Planning commissioners ask staff to bring St. Mary’s Crossing back after updated traffic study

February 02, 2025 | St. Mary's County, Maryland


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Planning commissioners ask staff to bring St. Mary’s Crossing back after updated traffic study
The Saint Mary's County Planning Commission on April 26 voted to ask staff to bring CCSP 9132007 (St. Mary’s Crossing) back for additional review when an updated traffic study for the St. Andrews Church Road/Wildwood Parkway portion is available. The motion was made by Commissioner Susan Guazzo and seconded by Commissioner McNeil; the motion passed with Commissioner Seabird recorded in opposition.

Commissioner Guazzo told the commission she noticed an omission in the minutes and the record when she reviewed the prior motion, and said the traffic portion for St. Andrews Church Road was missing. She moved, "in the matter of CCSP 9132007 concerning the traffic impact of this development, a motion to ask staff at such time as they have received the updated, new and improved traffic study for this St. Andrews Church Road portion...bring this project back to us for another look at it with the aspects of the traffic portion that impact this development," so the commission could "study it and perhaps make another finding at that time."

Jared Verlage, director of the Department of Land Use and Growth Management, said staff supported returning the traffic study and clarified the commission’s request related to the director’s administrative finding of adequate public facilities. Commissioners discussed the scope: several said they were not reopening the concept plan approval but sought an advisory briefing that the director could consider when he made final APF (adequate public facilities) findings. Commissioner Minor expressed concern about fairness to the applicant and whether routinely bringing cases back after approval was appropriate; others said advisory briefings were not the same as reopening approvals.

The commission clarified the motion did not impose additional conditions on the developer but asked that staff and the director consider any discussion the commission made when making the director’s APF finding. Chair called for the vote; the motion carried with one dissent.

Planning staff indicated they would schedule the briefing when the updated traffic study was available and that the return would be informational so the director could consider commissioners’ comments before final administrative action.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Maryland articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI