Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Leonardtown council denies Single Tree quadplex after heated public hearing
Summary
After extended public comment about traffic, fire access, density and recorded plat restrictions, the Leonardtown Mayor and Council voted 3–2 on May 11 to deny concept plan Case 43-25 for a four-unit quadplex in the Single Tree neighborhood.
The Town of Leonardtown’s council on May 11 denied concept plan Case 43-25, which proposed a two-story quadplex with four one-bedroom units on a 0.44-acre lot in the Single Tree planned unit development.
The public hearing drew large turnout from Single Tree residents. Speakers repeatedly cited concerns about compatibility with existing single-family character, traffic and pedestrian safety near multiple school bus stops, limited parking (two spaces per unit on the concept plan), potential obstruction of emergency access lanes, stormwater and open-space impacts, and possible property-value effects for adjacent homeowners. A firefighter and longtime resident argued that constrained access and tight aisles would hamper emergency response.
Several speakers raised a legal argument based on recorded plats and covenants, saying a 2001 recorded plat and town-code provisions should govern and that the proposed density exceeded restrictions for the phase; one commenter urged the council to apply the more restrictive recorded instrument rather than interpret PUD flexibility broadly. Town staff and the applicant’s attorney disputed claims that recorded documents conclusively prohibit the proposal and noted the underlying PUD zoning allows mixed housing types; staff said several of the legal and technical points would require factual responses and more review.
Applicant Sean Pierre O’Boury, who said the project was intended to house visiting physicians and reduce commutes for hospital staff, and his attorney Jackie Meiser said a one-story option was possible but the developer prefers two stories for viability. Meiser asked for the opportunity to respond point-by-point to public comments before a final decision.
After deliberation, a council member moved to deny the concept plan; the motion was seconded and adopted by voice vote, with the chair announcing the result as 3–2 in favor of denial. Council members discussed whether misinformation about recorded plat notes influenced the outcome and noted the applicant may be able to revise, resubmit or appeal; staff said revised proposals exceeding 10 percent of the design would require a fresh review and public process.
The denial is a conceptual decision; the applicant may seek to revise the plan, pursue an appeal, or return with modified designs. The council’s action preserves current neighborhood expectations while leaving legal and procedural questions about plat interpretation and PUD density for future review.
