Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Future Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends simplifying future land‑use categories in draft 2050 plan
Summary
Staff proposed consolidating several 2010/2018 future land‑use categories and deleting two nonstandard categories; commissioners generally signaled support while emphasizing that zoning would not change now and that some items may require separate master‑plan work.
At a Sept. 24 work session, the Saint Mary's County Planning Commission reviewed proposed changes to the draft 2050 comprehensive plan that would consolidate several future land‑use categories and remove two nonstandard categories from the future land‑use map.
The proposed changes are intended as a cleanup and simplification of the plan's land‑use taxonomy; they would not change current zoning maps or regulations without a separate zoning update, staff said. "We're not changing anything related to zoning in this effort," Leanne (staff member) said, presenting the recommended table that aligns 2010/2018 land‑use categories with applicable zoning districts.
Why it matters: The comprehensive plan provides policy guidance for future zoning updates and site decisions. Simplifying overlapping or duplicative future‑land categories is intended to reduce confusion when the county later revises its zoning ordinance and maps to reflect the new plan.
Staff described the main recommended consolidations: combine Residential Low Density Transitional and Residential Low Density into a single Residential Low Density designation (with an overlay to preserve critical‑area policies); consolidate Rural Commerce and Crossroads Commercial to Rural Commerce; merge Rural Preservation and Rural Residential into Rural Preservation; and combine Public Lands and Open Space into a single Public Lands category while finding a clearer name so that private lands reserved as open space are included. Staff also recommended deleting two items from the future land‑use map: Nonprofit Institutional and Tidal Wetlands (staff said tidal wetlands remain shown on other regulatory maps and would continue to be protected under other policies).
Staff also proposed a new, single Lexington Park Development District future‑land designation that would explicitly reference that area’s existing master plan. "Instead of having multiple future land‑use classifications used in other places in the county, there'd be one designation applied to Lexington Park Development District that points to the master plan," Leanne (staff member) said, adding that referencing the master plan directly can reduce inconsistency when the master plan is updated.
County staff and a consultant also explained the legal relationship among the comprehensive plan, the county’s comprehensive zoning ordinance, and existing zoning maps. "The comprehensive plan is an advisory document," John Sterling Hauser (staff member) told commissioners while summarizing case law and state guidance, noting an exception for conditional uses where state law or a zoning ordinance specifically ties ordinance language to a plan. He noted the current comprehensive zoning ordinance contains numerous explicit references to the 2010 comprehensive plan and therefore does not automatically adopt future plan updates without separate zoning ordinance changes.
Commissioners broadly supported the idea of streamlining overlapping categories while stressing that the recommended changes are policy guidance only. "I'm good with that," Planning Commissioner Judy Filleas said after the residential consolidation was presented. Other commissioners raised questions about distinctions between categories — for example whether rural preservation and certain residential rural districts should remain separate — and staff explained how existing zoning and infrastructure limits (not this plan update) control subdivision and density in rural areas.
What comes next: Staff said the comprehensive plan update will return in November and December as a multi‑session draft review. Commissioners and staff also flagged that if the county wants to adjust boundaries of growth or development districts — for example, to expand the Lexington Park Development District — that could require a separate master‑planning or implementation process tied to existing grants and commitments.
The planning commission did not take any formal votes at the Sept. 24 work session. Staff will incorporate feedback into the draft comprehensive plan and bring the revised draft to public work sessions later this year.
