Planning commission forwards favorable recommendation for 19.54‑acre Bridgetown extraction expansion

On Feb. 13, 2025, the Queen Anne's County Planning Commission voted to find the concept plan for a 19.54‑acre expansion of an existing major extraction operation consistent with the county comprehensive plan and forwarded a favorable recommendation to the Board of Appeals.

The applicant, Bridgetown Development Company LLC, proposed expanding the existing mining operation at 1720 Bridgetown Road by 19.54 acres. Staff reported the site comprises two parcels totaling 305.271 acres and that the proposed limits of disturbance (LOD) for the overall operation, including earlier approvals and the new area, total 275.48 acres. The applicant estimates removal of 13,265,090 cubic yards of material over 47.88 years (about 277,056 cubic yards per year) with a finished excavation depth of about 50 to 55 feet.

Commission staff said the expansion would add about 6.4 acres of impervious surface and 2,262 square feet of floor area, that Environmental Health approved the expansion, and that there is no new water or sewer proposed. A noise study submitted by the applicant concluded the expansion would not exceed residential daytime or nighttime noise limits at the property line.

The proposal includes a 30‑foot‑wide, 7‑foot‑tall planted berm around the expansion area, to be planted with 4‑ to 8‑foot loblolly pine, white pine or eastern red cedar; existing haul and access roads will remain in use; and trucks will continue to use the approved haul route (Bridgetown Road → Carter Road → Route 19). Public works and the State Highway Administration offered no objection to approval, staff said.

Environmental protections and agency authorizations were a focus of the staff presentation. The site contains stream and buffer areas; county staff said Maryland law allows up to 20% disturbance of stream buffer under section 18‑163(B), and the applicant proposes to disturb 19.9% (about 1.866 acres) of buffer for berm construction. The applicant is proposing to fully disturb a small non‑tidal wetland; staff included a Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) authorization in the packet. The site contains 4.41 acres of woodlands; the applicant proposes clearing 2.34 acres; staff noted mining operations are exempt from forest conservation under section 18‑24(b)(10).

Staff also noted the presence of a bald eagle nest on or near the clearing area and said the applicant has an authorization from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (permit number PER2758057) to disturb the nest under the conditions of that permit; staff cautioned any project changes might require a new authorization. County staff additionally relayed Maryland Department of Natural Resources guidance that protective measures be observed to avoid altering hydrology and to protect aquatic habitat for sensitive species identified in the drainage (ironcolor shiner, dwarf wedge mussel and creeper).

The Planning Commission approved a resolution that (1) found the concept plan consistent with the Queen Anne's County 2022 Comprehensive Plan, (2) required that hours of operation remain consistent with the original conditional use approval (CU‑one80516) and that any changes return for additional approvals, (3) required maintenance of landscaping and financial surety for landscaping, reclamation and stormwater, (4) required trucks to adhere to the approved haul route and prohibited truck parking, stacking, jake brakes and tailgate slamming on public roads, (5) limited material storage piles to 45 feet in height, (6) required annual inspections and as‑built updates to the Board of Appeals and the department of planning and zoning, (7) required all state permits be in place prior to final county permitting, (8) required adherence to DNR protective measures for aquatic habitat, and (9) required compliance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit for the bald eagle nest. The commission also resolved that any future mining phases or changes to the end‑use plan must return to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the Board of Appeals.

Charles Shaler, attorney for the applicant’s counsel (identified in meeting materials as Baker Donelson), said the filing represents a continuation of previously approved phases and that "there are no changes proposed here" beyond the previously carved‑out area that lacked state permits at the time of earlier approvals. Applicant representatives said they have worked with county public works and that there had been no significant complaints during the life of the project.

The commission voted in favor of both the findings and the favorable recommendation; the record shows the motion carried with commissioners voting "aye."