St. Mary’s Crossing PUD draws neighborhood opposition over traffic, environmental and access concerns; hearing continued to Sept. 16

The St. Mary’s County Board of County Commissioners heard more than three hours of public comment and staff testimony on the St. Mary’s Crossing Planned Unit Development (PUD), during which neighbors pressed for traffic safety fixes and environmental protections and county staff said the project needs specific mitigation — including a traffic signal or a state-standard roundabout — to be compatible with existing neighborhoods.

Neighbors, representatives of St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church and county planning staff told the board the intersection of Hunt Club Road/Route 4 and Saint Andrews Church Road is already failing and would deteriorate if the project proceeds without major mitigation. "They have ingress and egress through the property. They don't own the property, and they don't have any right to upgrade the property," said Michael Barnes, a nearby resident, describing his concerns about an existing private right-of-way being used as developer access. Several residents urged the county to require the developer to upgrade and dedicate the private access to county standards rather than leave it as a privately maintained road.

Why this matters: County staff and several speakers said traffic at the Hunt Club/Route 4 corridor creates an immediate safety risk for existing residents, school buses and motorists. Staff framed traffic mitigation as the central compatibility issue under local rules governing PUD approvals, and recommended conditions intended to ensure public safety before large-scale construction proceeds.

Staff report and conditions: Bob Bowles of county planning read a staff report that included a draft package of 22 conditions intended to address compatibility, public safety and infrastructure. The top condition would require a traffic signal at Hunt Club Road opposite Saint Andrews Estates Lane when warranted by the State Highway Administration (SHA), or, in lieu of a signal, construction of a double‑lane roundabout to SHA standards. "Without a traffic light, I don't feel the issue of compatibility is addressed adequately," Bowles said in presenting the findings.

Other notable staff conditions included: upgrading Johnson Pond Lane and a private connector road to county public-road standards and dedicating them to the county before certain phases of building permits; deed and dedication of a roughly 26-acre school site to the Board of Education (with potential acreage increase if Johnson Pond Lane is closed); retrofit of the principal pond on the site to serve as stormwater management for the development and surrounding uplands; a traffic mitigation fee (staff cited $3,535 per dwelling unit as a planning-commission recommendation, while the developer's draft agreement referenced $2,008); and a requirement that 150 workforce-housing units be provided for county workforce initiatives at income levels up to 110% of median household income.

Resident concerns and suggested alternatives: Multiple neighbors described constrained sightlines, high vehicle speeds on Route 4 and repeated minor and serious accidents when attempting to enter or exit Saint Andrews Church Road. Several speakers asked the county to prioritize resolving traffic issues before any substantial building begins, with one commenter saying, "Solve this problem of the traffic before you let them move the first blade of grass or the first piece of land." Residents and the church also asked the county to study improvements to Bellwood Lane as an alternative or supplemental access route to reduce pressure on the Hunt Club/Route 4 intersection.

Environmental issues: Local residents and environmental advocates raised concerns about habitat for the eastern narrow-mouthed toad, forest-interior bird species and the health of tributaries to the St. Mary's River. Mary Broadhurst cited Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) guidance and said portions of the site are rated S1/S2 for the narrow-mouthed toad, which would complicate development. She also raised concerns about the project's proposed recreational access (pier, trails, kayaking) to Wheeler's Pond and potential water-quality impacts.

Developer and consultant responses: The applicant's counsel and consultants told the board they have worked with resource agencies and intend mitigation measures. "DNR reviewed it and they have sent us a letter saying that in principle, our habitat protection plan is more than adequate to protect the habitat," said the applicant's counsel, who also said on-site biological surveys this past summer did not locate narrow-mouthed toads. The applicant's representative said permits from the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be obtained for stream and wetland work and that the developer intends to bring the earthen dam at the large pond up to applicable state standards rather than leave a failing dam in place.

Planning commission and process history: The planning commission previously reviewed the application and issued a recommendation record that the board included in the hearing materials; the planning commission's resolution recommended denial and the record contains a recommendation with multiple concerns. County staff noted the property’s water and sewer plan category was amended earlier in the process (the change to a more developable category does not by itself limit future unit counts) and stressed that the PUD review must address compatibility and the comprehensive plan.

Board action: The board kept the public record open for written comments for a minimum of 10 days and voted to continue both the PUD public hearing (planning case cited in the record as 06-14500004) and the developer's rights and responsibilities agreement (DRA, case 07-146001) to a continuation meeting at 6:30 p.m. on Sept. 16 at the Chesapeake Building. The motions to continue were made from the dais and seconded; the PUD continuation passed with a majority and one recorded nay; the DRA continuation carried by voice vote.

What remains unresolved: Staff flagged traffic mitigation as a threshold compatibility condition (traffic signal or roundabout to State Highway Administration standards), said MDE and Corps approvals are required before certain phases, and recommended that off-site and on-site road upgrades be bonded and constructed before later-phase building permits. The applicant agreed to respond in writing to the 22 proposed conditions within the 10-day comment period and to return for the continued hearing so commissioners can probe the responses.

Ending note: The board did not make a final decision on St. Mary’s Crossing; the public hearing remains open and the file will return to the board on Sept. 16 for further testimony, written responses from the applicant to staff conditions, and deliberation.