Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident appeals Saddle Ridge infrastructure plan over stormwater concerns; council takes case under advisement
Summary
The Prince George’s County District Council heard an appeal to SDP-2304 (Saddle Ridge) from Mark Calhoun, who said the infrastructure plan threatens well water and large onsite streams; applicant attorney Matthew Tedesco and planning staff defended the SDP and noted DPIE and the planning board approvals. The council took the matter under advisement for further clarification.
The Prince George’s County District Council on Oct. 7 heard oral argument on SDP-2304, a specific design plan for the Saddle Ridge infrastructure project in Council District 9. Mark Calhoun, the person of record and a District 9 resident, appealed the planning board’s action and told council members the site adjoins his property and that proposed work could alter local waterways and his private well supply.
"This is naturally a wetland area," Calhoun said, warning that the proposal to build hundreds of homes would "massively change the way the water flows into this area," damage his land and affect his house foundations. He said he had not received site-specific responses addressing his concerns and asked for clearer technical plans.
Planning staff presented the SDP as an infrastructure-only application covering roughly 289 acres; the submission includes public streets, water and sewer lines, storm drain utilities and stormwater management features but does not itself create lots or dwelling units. Emery Huang of the county’s urban design staff described the SDP, noted the planning board approved the plan subject to six conditions and one consideration, and summarized related materials such as the tree conservation plan and the planning board resolution.
Matthew Tedesco, attorney for the applicant, said the property has a long history of surface mining and that prior approvals — including a zoning map amendment and a comprehensive design plan — authorized development of the site. He told the council "DPIE has reviewed and approved our stormwater concept plan, which is concept number 24,297-2023. It was approved in May of this year," and argued the SDP meets the statutory findings required for infrastructure approval.
Tedesco also offered to share detailed technical plans with Calhoun and said the project must clear a three-step technical review by the Soil Conservation District and DPIE before any grading permits are issued. "We will be required in the Soil Conservation District, as well as DPIE, to review technical plans in a 3 step process before any grading permits are issued," he told the council.
Calhoun disputed the applicant’s characterization of prior mining near his home and reiterated that the land surrounding his house has not been disturbed. Council attorney Brown advised Calhoun that many of his concerns — including specific stormwater and tree conservation issues — will be addressed at later stages (preliminary plan and subdivision, DPIE and WSSC reviews) and recommended that Calhoun stay in contact with the applicant to participate in those future reviews. Brown also noted that staff and the planning board found the SDP met requirements under section 27-5-27(c) and section 27-5-28(b) of the zoning ordinance.
After brief council discussion urging continued communication between the parties, the vice chair moved to take the appeal under advisement so members could review the record and outstanding technical details. No final vote on the SDP was recorded at the Oct. 7 meeting; the council did not approve or deny the SDP at this session.
