Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Leonardtown council tables Hall property annexation after notice, driveway concerns
Summary
The council tabled annexation petition Case 39-25 (Hall property, ~16.35 acres) after neighbors raised problems with certified-mail notice and a 30-foot shared driveway that could be affected by commercial access; council asked staff to research easement limits and return for further discussion.
The Leonardtown Town Council on Dec. 8, 2025 tabled an annexation petition for a 16.35-acre parcel known in the record as the Hall property after neighbors raised procedural and access concerns.
Janine Harrington, assistant town administrator, summarized the staff report for Case 39-25, noting the petition was submitted to state and county reviewers on Nov. 6, 2025, that the Maryland Department of Planning had returned comments, and that the town’s planning commission recommended commercial highway (CH) zoning on Nov. 18. Harrington told the council that the annexation would bring the parcel into the town’s corporate limits but would not itself approve any development or change in land use.
At the public hearing, an attorney speaking for Mr. Hall noted the parcel is contiguous to town limits, described the county zoning as Rail Preservation District (RPD), and said a county waiver would be required to change zoning sooner than the five-year waiting period. The attorney said there were no immediate plans for major development and urged the council that annexation does not equal immediate approval of building plans.
Neighbor Joe Gardner said he had not received certified notice in time because the mailed letter was returned; he said the property’s only frontage is a 30-foot shared driveway that currently serves his property and asked the council to consider a continuance to address access and zoning concerns. Multiple council members pressed staff and counsel about whether the deeded easement could limit commercial or heavy vehicle use and whether both property owners would have to agree to any relocation or change in the driveway location.
One councilor moved to table the annexation petition “until further discussion,” a motion seconded and approved by voice vote. The council did not set a date for returning the item and directed staff and town counsel to investigate the easement language, certified-mail posting procedure, and any other outstanding notice or access issues before the matter is brought back.
The tabling preserves the council’s ability to revisit the petition without prejudice; it does not deny annexation. If the town later approves annexation, subsequent zoning and development approvals would be separate proceedings requiring additional public hearings.
