ST. MARY’S COUNTY, Md. — In a unanimous 4-0 vote, the St. Mary’s County Board of Appeals denied an appeal from the developers of the proposed Riverside Townhomes, reaffirming the Planning Commission’s earlier rejection of the 42-unit project. Despite the applicant’s efforts to revise the site plan, including the addition of a 10-foot landscaped buffer, a 6-foot privacy fence, supplemental landscaping in the form of arborvitae, and stormwater improvements, the board cited serious concerns over traffic safety, outdated data and the broader impact on community welfare.
The appeal, heard de novo, focused on whether the revised concept plan addressed prior objections. However, board members were not convinced the changes went far enough — particularly regarding traffic safety on Route 235. Citing post-pandemic congestion, recently exacerbated by the recent federal “return to work” order, and a dangerous intersection at Route 235/Route 4, members argued the proposed mitigation payments for signal upgrades were insufficient.
One of the board’s major sticking points involved school bus safety. Because school buses mostly do not enter private roads, children would need to board along Route 235, which could seriously endanger the safety of the children, particularly in the vicinity of a highly dangerous intersection. A proposed 17-foot shoulder for pull-offs was deemed inadequate. Additional skepticism came from the use of pre-COVID traffic data, which members said ignored the surge in commuting linked to federal return-to-office mandates.
Public feedback echoed many of the board’s reservations. Eight letters were submitted, including one from Dr. John Sizemore of Three Notch Dental. While Sizemore supported the revised landscaping and fencing, he remained concerned about guest parking spilling into his lot. Other residents cited increased congestion, the lack of affordable housing and the area’s mismatch for dense townhome development. However, traffic remained the chief concern.
“All we need is another accident in the merge with a bus at the nearby stop area and we have kids hurt or killed,” wrote Gail Stevens in one of the letters. “We must ask ourselves if it is worth the risk.”
Ultimately, the board ruled that while the plan may have met technical zoning requirements, it failed to satisfy the broader mandate of protecting public health, safety and welfare.
“You followed the law to the T,” Chair George Hayden noted. “But there’s one of the standards that Mr. Payne just talked about, and that’s the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of St. Mary’s County, and I think you fall short on that one.”
In response, attorney Oh, representing the applicant, said that the board did not have the authority to reject the appeal on the grounds of safety concerns, because the project had already been established as meeting the zoning ordinance and zoning requirements that are legal standards for approval.
“Those are legislative determinations, and the board does not have within its arsenal… the power to rewrite the intent of the legislature,” Oh said. “The board does make the ultimate determination, but… it is insufficient to say, ‘I think school bus pickups might be a problem’ — that is not adequate to overturn [the zoning] presumption.”
The applicant has 30 days to file an appeal in Circuit Court.
Contact our news desk at news@thebaynet.com
I love how they act like the traffic congestion is a new phenomenon. It was like this, if not worse, before Covid and the federal return to work mandates.
Agreed. It’s housing – that’s why they don’t want it. But if it was a Wawa or Royal Farms they’d have taken the money off the stump. The republicans running this county are always about building and sprawl without transportation infrastructure.