Work session on Lexington Park Development District focuses on Navy compatibility rules, 'Lexington Manor' land and downtown core

Staff presented a broad work session on the Lexington Park Development District on Jan. 27 that centered on Air Installation Compatible Use guidance for the Patuxent River Naval Air Station, draft compatibility tables, noise and Accident Potential Zone (APZ) mapping, proposed water-and-sewer phasing language and the future of the northern Lexington Manor parcel (the former "flat tops").

Jeff Jackman, county planning staff, walked commissioners through a multi-part workbook. The materials included the county’s current ACUS zoning language (Chapter 43), historical correspondence from Navy officers (including a 1995 letter from Captain Standridge), the 2007 encroachment-study recommendations and cooperation agreement between Navy staff and the Board of County Commissioners (ordinance Z-07-3), the Navy’s 2009 facility ACUS study, and the DoD/Service instructions that guided those studies (transcript references 11010.36c and a 2011 DO D update).

Jackman told the commission that the staff analysis used the 2009 facility study as the primary basis for the draft changes while the 2011 instruction update was being reviewed. "All of these come into play," Jackman said of the guidance documents, and he noted the county had compared its current ordinance to the military instructions and related both to the zoning schedule (Schedule 50.4) that lists permitted uses by zone.

Discussion points - Scope of guidance: Commissioners and staff discussed whether the 2009 ACUS study’s detailed restrictions pin down landowners too tightly in the APZ, and several members asked whether guidance should be applied case-by-case. Jackman said the 2009 study had been used as the working basis and that Navy staff comments on the draft compatibility tables would be incorporated in a later iteration. - APZ and noise: Staff showed maps of the downtown area with noise contours (the 65–70 dB band appears on the materials) and noted most of the downtown overlays APZ 2 rather than APZ 1; a small APZ 1 sliver crosses 3 Notch Road and affects a few civic properties. Commissioners emphasized that the county’s proposals should account for concentrations of people as well as the APZ averages. - Water and sewer phasing: Staff proposed draft language (page 15 of the workbook) that would prioritize downtown revitalization for infrastructure investment and defer major utility extensions in outlying parts of the development district until later phases. The approach would direct roads, water, sewer and parks investments first to the downtown revitalization area and delay infrastructure in other subareas unless specific projects met criteria or were locally funded. Several commissioners asked staff to coordinate with METCOM on feasibility and timing for utility extensions. - Lexington Manor ("flat tops"): The northern 34-acre parcel purchased by the State of Maryland was discussed at length. County staff told commissioners the state purchased that northern parcel for $3,000,000 and that the county paid approximately $970,000 in relocation assistance; the southern parcel (about 50 acres) was assembled with federal funds and Program Open Space monies and is deed-restricted to passive recreation. Several commissioners and county staff said the northern parcel has public benefits as a buffer to protect the Pax River mission and recommended keeping the northern 34 acres undeveloped; a show-of-hands indicated a consensus to leave that parcel green and not site the proposed employment/education campus there.

Commissioner concerns and next steps Commissioners expressed differing views about where the downtown core should be defined and whether multiple cores or "nodes" would better serve Lexington Park. Some members urged stronger preservation of certain parcels to protect the Navy mission; others favored exploring partnership approaches (county, state, Navy) to acquire or manage properties and to preserve redevelopment options along Willow Road and the downtown edges.

Staff requested direction on several items: to continue work on the compatibility tables incorporating Navy comments, to provide enlarged copies of the building-inventory/tenant lists and maps, to refine the water-and-sewer phasing language in the draft master plan, and to show the plan variants (including a green/northern-parcel option). Commissioners directed staff to return with those materials and to consult METCOM about utility feasibility. No formal regulatory action was adopted at the work session; the materials were retained for further work and future hearings.