St. Mary's Planning Commission approves Bradley Brook concept plan and preliminary subdivision amid noise and traffic debate

The St. Mary’s County Planning Commission voted Jan. 12 to approve the Bradley Brook concept site plan (CSP24-04) and preliminary major subdivision (MJSB25-0216), a proposal for 223 homes (150 townhouses and 73 single-family lots), attaching conditions that require noise studies and mitigation for houses in mapped high-noise contours, roadway improvements coordinated with the county, and required buyer disclosures.

The project team, represented by attorney Chris Longmore and engineer Greg Hossendorf, said they had updated site renderings, driveway measurements and a traffic impact study after prior questions from the commission. Traffic consultant Nick Dribben (Lenhart Traffic) told commissioners the updated counts (collected Dec. 10) and additional intersection analyses show the required study intersections operate at level of service A under the county’s Adequate Public Facilities (APF) methodology even after adding the development’s traffic; he estimated the site would add roughly 67 AM-peak trips at the congested Willow’s/Shangri La intersection. Dribben’s SimTraffic animations showed existing queuing from a downstream signal at MD 246/MD 235 that, he said, explains much of the observed backups — and could be partly addressed by signal retiming at State Highway Administration (SHA) intersections.

The Navy and local residents raised the most persistent concerns. A Navy official who testified as part of public comment emphasized Department of Defense guidance discouraging development within the 65–70 dB day-night average sound level contours unless unavoidable, and said about 23 of Bradley Brook’s single-family lots fall inside the Navy’s newer 65–70 dB contour. The Navy speaker urged removal or relocation of those units, saying that proximity to accident-potential zones and higher noise exposure could create mission and safety conflicts over time.

The applicant responded that the county has not adopted the Navy’s 2019/2021 contours as local law, but that the developer nevertheless agreed to voluntarily apply noise attenuation measures for the homes in those contours and to include contract disclosures for buyers. Acoustic consultant Gary Ehrlich said standard, commercially available upgrades — resilient channel wall attachments and windows/doors rated about STC 29–32 — typically achieve about 25 dB of interior reduction and can be certified at the building-permit stage.

Commissioners also pressed the applicant on a single public entrance from Bradley Boulevard. The applicant said topography and a 12-foot retaining wall on adjacent property prevented a practical second access; they proposed private townhome roads with pull-in parking while single-family streets would be offered to the county for maintenance. The project team offered to coordinate with the county Department of Public Works and Transportation on striping and striping-based channelization measures along Bradley Boulevard to improve safety and circulation at the entrance.

After public testimony that included homeowners near existing single-access subdivisions and proponents who said the project would deliver workforce and attainable housing near the base, commissioners debated whether to delay action until the Navy completes a pending AQ/APZ study this spring. Deputy County Attorney John Sterling Hauser advised the commission that any change to AQ maps would require formal action by the county commissioners and public hearings; he also said the planning commission’s role is to apply current law. Several commissioners said the county should work to accommodate Navy concerns in future rulemaking; others said delaying would risk project financing and investment.

The commission approved the concept site plan and the preliminary major subdivision with conditions requiring: (a) road improvements required by state or county to be concurrent with certificates of occupancy; (b) any required variance for reduced street frontage; (c) building permit submittal of a noise study for affected units with implementation or certification of noise-attenuation measures identified by a certified acoustical engineer; (d) final site plan implementation of DPW-recommended roadway improvements and striping; and (e) required sound-disclosure language in property sales documents. The motions and roll calls were recorded by the commission (see the meeting record for vote tallies and individual member votes).

Next steps: the applicant may proceed with detailed site-plan and subdivision permitting under the conditions set by the commission. If the county later adopts revised AQ/AZ maps or other ordinances that materially affect the project, the county commissioners would decide how to treat projects already in the pipeline — including whether to apply new rules retroactively.

The commission also noted that if applicants or opponents elect to appeal, the project could be heard by the Board of Appeals. The commission closed the hearing and adjourned after the votes.