Motion to rescind Lehi Villas approval fails after split vote as residents raise traffic, environmental and ethics concerns

The Calvert County Planning Commission on July 17 considered and rejected a motion to rescind approval of SD 142770 (commonly referred to as Lusby or Lehi Villas), an item originally approved May 15, 2024. Commissioner Christian Freeman moved to rescind the prior approval, saying the traffic impact analysis presented with the file used outdated data; JP Sherkis seconded the motion.

"I move that in regard to SD 142770 Lusby Villas, planning commission rescind the approval," Commissioner Christian Freeman said when offering the motion.

Freeman and supporters argued the traffic study relied on 2019 counts and therefore did not reflect current conditions. County Public Works Director J.R. Cosgrove told the commission the study had been submitted and reviewed within the three‑year window that governed APFO review at the time of the earlier action, and that staff had not at that time required a new study; he added that new counts were being taken and an updated study was expected soon.

"At the time the subdivision came to you, I think it was in May and you all approved the preliminary subdivision... I don't know if I'd necessarily say it was an error," Cosgrove said, explaining the three‑year timing rule and that site‑plan‑level review is more typically where a traffic study is required.

Public comment at the meeting was extensive and largely opposed the project. Speakers raised multiple concerns:

- Water quality and watershed impacts: Ted Haney of Friends of Mill Creek Watershed said the site "sits right at the headwaters of Lake Lariat that feeds into the headwaters of Mill Creek," and urged commissioners to consider evidence he said would show impervious surface in the watershed at or above thresholds that harm water quality.

- Traffic, APFO timing and SHA review: Several residents, including David Burry and others, urged that a new traffic study be completed and released for public review and noted that the Maryland State Highway Administration review could extend timelines.

- Public safety, schools and EMS capacity: multiple speakers warned that additional residential units would strain local schools, hospitals and volunteer EMS and fire services.

- Ethics and conflict‑of‑interest allegations: Myra Gowans and others said an ethics complaint had been filed regarding Commissioner Lisa Williams' status as a licensed real‑estate agent and urged recusal and reconsideration; the county attorney was cited as having requested financial disclosure. Speakers asked the commission to revisit prior votes in light of the complaint.

Some public speakers also claimed the project would receive HUD funding and therefore be required to include low‑income units; Joshua Johnson asserted the property is "secured HUD funding ... [which] require[s] a portion of the development to be low income." That statement was made as a representation by a public commenter and was not documented in staff materials during the meeting.

After discussion and clarification from public works and the applicant's consultant (who said counts were being prepared and a new study would be available prior to an Aug. 21 meeting), the commission held a roll‑call vote. Commissioners Freeland, Gadway and McQueen voted to rescind; Commissioners Holler, Kernan and Williams voted no. Chair John Tuohy then announced the tally and stated he would vote no. The motion therefore did not pass.

The meeting record shows the contested procedural basis read by staff (contested‑cases rule referenced for rescission) and the commission left the action in place pending any future submittals; staff and commissioners noted the new traffic study and any required SHA review as likely next steps if the item returns for further action.

Next steps mentioned during the meeting included completion and public release of the updated traffic study, possible SHA review, and staff consideration of how those materials affect APFO and site‑plan requirements; residents urged additional environmental analysis and time for public review.