Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Master Plan Town Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission directs staff to add traffic and APFO language to Prince Frederick town center chapters; schedules May 21 public hearing
Summary
The Planning Commission reviewed draft chapters 1 and 2 of the Master Plan of Town Centers, directed staff to add text citing five failing intersections and APFO consequences for Prince Frederick, and instructed staff to place the revised chapters on a May 21 public hearing; motion passed by commission vote.
Calvert Countyplanning staff presented draft chapters 1 and 2 of the Master Plan of Town Centers on April 16 and the Planning Commission directed staff to add specific language describing existing traffic congestion and the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) implications for Prince Frederick. The commission also voted to place the revised chapters on a public hearing slated for May 21.
Staff presentation and revisions: Tay Harris, long range planner, told the commission the update approach would prioritize the oldest town center plans and follow a three-phase process: identify issues, develop the plan, adopt the plan. Staff said chapter 1 contains background applicable to all town centers; chapter 2 addresses Prince Frederick-specific updates and incorporates agency, department and public comments received during the 90-day comment period (June 27toSept. 25, 2024).
Traffic, APFO and transportation chapter direction: Commissioners raised concerns that recent traffic impact analyses identify multiple failing intersections in Prince Frederick. One commissioner summarized November 2024 traffic analysis findings and noted five intersections that show failing levels of service under APFO criteria: Route 4 at MD 402 (Commerce Lane), Route 4 at Commerce Lane, Route 4 at Church Street, Main Street at Church Street and Route 4 at Stokely Road (the latter identified inside the broader Prince Frederick area). The commissioner argued that the town center chapter should specifically cite these failing intersections and explain APFO consequences: future commercial or residential projects in affected areas would either need traffic remediation by state/county or developers, or face delays (for example, a six-year wait) before site plan approval unless the State Highway Administration provides relief.
Commission action: the commission voted to direct staff to add language under the traffic conditions section that cites the five failing intersections and describes the APFO ramifications on future development; the amendment passed on an initial vote and the commission then directed the planning commission administrator to place the draft chapters, "with modifications previously approved," on the May 21 public hearing agenda. Director of Public Works J. R. Cosgrove confirmed county and state constraints on intersection mitigation and noted larger improvements would likely require coordinated, multi-party funding and planning.
Other planning topics discussed: commissioners and staff discussed critical area overlay rules, forest conservation/specimen trees, and the Eastern Loop/Foxhorn Boulevard funding and timing. Staff said portions of the Eastern Loop have construction plans progressing (Foxhorn Boulevard segment from Dares Beach area) but additional segments are in the county CIP and likely farther out (several years). Several commissioners and a public commenter raised broader concerns about cumulative development in Prince Frederick, traffic safety on MD 231 and water-quality impacts in Chesapeake Bay-critical areas.
Public comment: during the public-comment portion, Bob Estes representing Friends of Hunting Creek urged greater attention to cumulative impacts on water quality and traffic in the town center, saying continued incremental approvals could degrade recreational water quality and public safety.
Why it matters: the requested language change would explicitly tie current traffic constraints to APFO consequences in the town center master plan text, which could affect how future applications are reviewed and how staff and applicants prioritize mitigation or staging. The May 21 public hearing will give additional opportunity for agencies and the public to comment on the revised chapters.
Next steps: staff will incorporate the requested traffic/APFO language and return chapters 1 and 2 to public hearing on May 21, 2025. Further discussion on critical area overlay amendments or changes would require separate processes, including state review where applicable.
