Applicant seeks to add 36 nursing beds, 24,873 sq ft expansion at Sterling Care Hillhaven in Adelphi

Maureen McNeil, the Zoning Hearing Examiner, convened a July 28, 2025 hearing on a special exception (SE-24003) and alternative compliance requests (AC-25008) submitted by Hill Haven S and F Realty LLC to expand the existing Sterling Care Hillhaven nursing and care home at 3210 Powder Mill Road in Adelphi.

The applicant seeks to add a 24,873-square-foot building addition that would increase the facility from 126 beds to 162 beds — an increase of 36 skilled nursing beds — and enlarge the special-exception boundary to about 8.34 acres by including Parcels 23, 24, 2324 and 108. Jeff Kagan, manager of Hill Haven S and F Realty LLC, said the expansion “adds 36 new skilled nursing beds, most of which are going to be in private rooms.”

Why it matters: the proposal would add skilled-nursing capacity to an existing long-standing institutional use and requires approvals that touch environmental controls, specimen-tree removal, landscape buffering standards and transportation adequacy. The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission technical staff prepared a July 10, 2025 report endorsing findings and recommending conditions, and the applicant presented revised site, landscape and tree conservation plans in response to technical review.

What the plans show and applicant testimony Phil Rhodes, a professional engineer with AMT (AMT Engineering/AMT), described the draft special-exception site plan and related engineering elements. Rhodes said the proposed addition is located on the lower-left quadrant of the site plan to avoid floodplain and stream-buffer areas and that the new building area measures 24,873 square feet. He testified the project adds 10 compact parking spaces, bringing the site total to 61, which “exceeds the 54 space requirement.” Rhodes also described new stormwater management facilities that he said will treat runoff from roughly half an acre of previously untreated impervious area as well as the new addition. He reported total impacts to the Primary Management Area (PMA) equal about 1,301 square feet.

Rhodes confirmed the application includes a Tree Conservation Plan (TCP2) and seeks removal of two specimen trees; the applicant filed a specimen-tree variance/statement of justification as Exhibit 49. He described two alternative compliance (AC) requests to the Landscape Manual: one (4.7) for a reduced buffer offset where the building is closer than the standard 30-foot offset but the planting quantity and a six-foot fence are proposed to meet buffering goals, and one (4.9) to allow a required tree to be planted on a slope steeper than 3:1 with species- and detail-specific planting measures.

Architecture and internal layout Vipul Talwar, a licensed architect with Michael Graves Architects, presented elevations and floor plans of the addition. Talwar said the design connects at two points to the existing structure and includes a partial below-grade level for mechanical/storage systems. He described the addition’s material palette as brick veneer, cementitious siding in select locations, storefront glazing and metal canopies that are intended to harmonize with the existing facility while providing some contemporary accents.

Talwar described program adjacencies and circulation: nurses’ stations and common areas are sited to serve both the existing and new wings, and a multipurpose/dining space will serve the increased resident population. He confirmed the lower level is a basement as defined in the zoning ordinance and will be used for mechanical, electrical and storage support functions.

Traffic and access Michael Lenhart of Lenhart Traffic Consulting summarized a revised traffic brief (Exhibit 39). Lenhart testified the addition of 36 nursing beds generates an estimated increase of three morning and four evening peak-hour vehicle trips, raising the site’s peak-hour totals to 27 AM and 31 PM trips. He characterized that increase as “a de minimis impact” under the county transportation-review guidelines (the guideline threshold is five or fewer peak-hour trips for de minimis). Lenhart said the site has four physical connections to the public road network, of which two are intended for routine facility access and one is shown for emergency/fire access; he concluded the access points are adequate and that the preliminary plan/ADQ approvals establish a trip cap consistent with his analysis.

Land planning, consistency, and environmental matters Mark Ferguson, a senior land planner with Site Design Inc., reviewed neighborhood context, master-plan guidance and zoning-criteria compliance. He noted the property sits in the RR zone (prior RR under the earlier ordinance) in an “established communities” area of the Prince George’s County general plan and that the use has a long entitlement history dating to the 1960s with multiple prior special exceptions and site-plan revisions. Ferguson concluded the proposal fits the site’s context and the master-plan recommendations for low-density residential character, in part because the addition’s scale, setbacks and preserved wooded frontage reduce streetscape impacts. He said the proposal meets the county’s special-exception criteria in the prior zoning ordinance and adopts the staff report’s recommended findings and conditions with the caveat that several staff conditions remain to be satisfied before plan certification.

Staff conditions and outstanding items The applicant asked the examiner to take administrative notice of multiple exhibits, including the technical staff report dated July 10, 2025 (staff report), an ADQ (certificate of adequacy) and a preliminary-plan resolution (4-24012). The applicant also filed a PMA statement of justification (Exhibit 46) and updates to the site, landscape and TCP2 plans (Exhibits 36a/36b, 37a/37b, 38). Rhodes testified that several staff-recommended conditions either have been completed in part (items a, d and e of one condition) or will be addressed before certification (landscape items and easement/recordation steps), while other items (e.g., emergency sediment-control submittals) still need final administrative filings.

Hearing outcome and next steps No vote was taken at the hearing. The Zoning Hearing Examiner closed the hearing record at the end of the session and stated a decision would be issued with deliberate speed. Any approval would be subject to the conditions recommended by staff unless modified in the examiner’s written decision.