Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission grants concept approval for G & H residences after public outcry over scale, parking and design
Summary
The Leonardtown Planning & Zoning Commission approved concept site plan approval for Case 29-25 — a proposed three‑story, 16‑unit apartment building — after residents and commissioners raised concerns about height, façade design, parking, traffic and trash access; staff said final façade review will be part of the next stage.
The Leonardtown Planning & Zoning Commission voted to grant concept site plan approval for Case 29‑25, the G & H residences, a proposed three‑story, 16‑unit apartment building on the west side of Washington Street.
Planning staff told the commission the site is in the commercial business district, the project complies with the town municipal code for permitted residential uses in that zone and requires 32 parking spaces, including two accessible spaces. The applicant has provided approvals from local conservation and county public works and has agreed to dedicate a 10‑foot strip for future Pope Street improvements.
Residents and several commissioners urged design changes to reduce visual massing and better match adjacent two‑story homes. “I walk it all the time, and I love the character of our town,” resident Candy Farren said, raising concerns about parking and trash‑truck access. Another resident, Tom Wilson, asked for clearer addressing on the plans so laypeople can follow the site layout. Builder Wayne Davis said the design includes one‑ and two‑bedroom units and estimated rents “somewhere roughly around $1,800 or $2,000,” a figure several commissioners later called optimistic.
Commissioners repeatedly recommended façade modulation, cornices, and other architectural measures to lessen the building’s perceived bulk. Planning staff noted the code allows buildings up to 45 feet in the commercial business district and pointed to existing three‑story apartments near Dunkin’ Donuts as precedent. Staff also emphasized that façade and final design elements will return for review at the final site plan stage and that failure to address these items could lead to denial at final approval.
The applicant said the SMECO utility easement and parking needs drive the building orientation; the owner will donate additional right‑of‑way for future street improvements. Several members of the public urged the developer to provide two façade alternatives with associated pricing so the commission can weigh aesthetic improvements against rent impacts; commissioner comments reflected interest in receiving costed alternatives prior to final design.
A commissioner moved to approve concept site plan approval for Case 29‑25; another commissioner seconded the motion and the commission proceeded with concept approval. Planning staff closed by reminding the applicant that final architectural/façade review and any conditions would be considered during the final site plan stage.
The commission also discussed longer‑term parking strategies for the downtown, including identified sites for a parking garage and a planned tram program to move people from lots to the downtown during busy periods. The project will return to the commission for façade and final design review.
