LEONARDTOWN, Md. — After nearly two years of public meetings, planning sessions and debate over how St. Mary’s County should grow, the county’s proposed 2050 Comprehensive Plan has reached the Commissioners of St. Mary’s County.
During their Aug. 18 meeting, commissioners received an overview of the attested draft plan and a series of memorandums recommending revisions based on public comments, county department requests and reviews by state agencies.
The commissioners tentatively scheduled their first work session for Sept. 15, with Sept. 22 reserved if additional discussion is needed. A commissioner public hearing could follow as early as Oct. 6, although officials stressed that date depends on how much work remains after the September sessions.
No final decisions were made Tuesday.
“These are simply recommendations from the Planning Commission,” Land Use and Growth Management Director Jessica Andritz said. “In order for you to adopt or modify a plan, you still have to conduct your own public hearings, and a final decision then would be made by you.”
The commissioners may adopt, modify, return or reject the entire plan or portions of it. However, they must hold a public hearing before adopting or modifying the proposal.
A 90-Day Deadline Begins
The St. Mary’s County Planning Commission voted 5-2 on Aug. 3 to recommend adoption of the plan. On Aug. 10, a majority of the commission signed the formal resolution and the Planning Commission chair certified an attested copy.
That certification triggered a deadline under Maryland land-use law.
If the county commissioners do not act within 90 days, the Planning Commission’s recommendation is considered approved. Because the 90th day falls on Sunday, Nov. 8, the deadline would move to Monday, Nov. 9.
The commissioners may adopt a resolution granting one 60-day extension if they determine exigent circumstances exist. That would move the deadline to Jan. 7, 2027.
Andritz confirmed the deadline and said county officials wanted to make certain both the board and the public understood the consequences of taking no action.
The board indicated it would prefer to complete the review under the original 90-day timeline rather than leave the decision to the next group of commissioners following the November election.
“I feel that we have been involved in this for almost two years,” one commissioner said. “I can’t see why we should pass this on any further. That’s not fair to the new board.”
Commissioners Want Time For A Careful Review
The first work session is tentatively scheduled for the afternoon of Sept. 15. Commissioners plan to review the current draft individually and bring questions, proposed additions and other requested changes to the session.
A second session could be held Sept. 22 if the board cannot complete its review in one afternoon.
“I do not want to rush through this,” one commissioner said. “If we need to stretch to the 22nd for a second work session, we’ll go the 22nd.”
If the board completes its work Sept. 15, it could formally request an Oct. 6 public hearing. If a second session is needed, the hearing may have to move to Oct. 13 to allow sufficient time for public notice.
The public hearing would be separate from the hearings already conducted by the Planning Commission. Commissioners would consider testimony from residents before taking final action.
“The commissioners make the final decision,” a board member said.
“That’s correct,” Andritz responded.
What The 2050 Plan Would Do
The St. Mary’s 2050 Plan is an update to the county’s 2010 Comprehensive Plan. It is a long-range policy document intended to guide decisions involving land use, housing, transportation, economic development, public facilities, environmental protection and infrastructure through approximately 2050.
The plan does not immediately rezone individual properties. Many of its goals and policies would later be implemented through updates to the county’s Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, capital projects, departmental plans and budget decisions.
Andritz emphasized that distinction while discussing concerns raised by property owners.
“Where the rubber meets the road is going to be in the zoning ordinance, and we’re just not there yet,” she said.
The draft also consolidates the county’s 23 land-use designations into fewer, broader categories. Staff members said the consolidation is intended to make the system easier to understand and allow more flexibility when zoning questions arise.
“There’s no significant impact to a property owner as to what they can and cannot do with their property,” Andritz said. “It’s just consolidating the land uses under some existing terms to make things flow a little bit more easy and make it simpler for our residents to understand what they can and cannot do with their property.”
The draft does not propose broad expansion of the county’s existing growth areas. Staff identified one limited exception involving a proposed addition to the Hollywood Town Center.
“The draft plan does not propose any encroachment into the rural areas of our county,” Andritz said.
Growth Must Match Infrastructure
One of the plan’s central themes is directing development to places where roads, schools, public safety services, water, sewer and other infrastructure can support it.
The proposal seeks to balance expected population growth and demand for housing with the preservation of farms, forests, waterways and the county’s rural character.
County officials said the plan began with state population and housing projections but does not automatically require the county to adopt the state’s most aggressive growth strategies.
“There are no significant changes to the growth areas, what people can and cannot do with their property,” Andritz said.
Commissioners nevertheless expressed concern about pressure from the state to accommodate high-density housing in communities that rely on private wells and septic systems.
The plan calls for additional study of attainable housing and “missing middle” options, which can include duplexes, townhouses, accessory dwelling units and other housing types between detached single-family homes and large apartment complexes.
The proposed housing study would also evaluate possible barriers to fair housing. Recommended revisions direct the county to consider the Maryland Department of Planning’s Housing Data Dashboard and guidance on affirmatively furthering fair housing.
Piney Point Remains A Major Question
Piney Point’s designation as a town center generated some of the strongest public response during development of the plan.
Piney Point has been classified as a town center since the 1980s. The proposed plan did not newly create that designation, despite confusion among some residents.
Town centers are considered secondary growth areas and may accommodate moderate residential, commercial and industrial development. Village centers are tertiary growth areas intended to concentrate smaller-scale services and community activities while retaining a traditional village pattern.
Both classifications may support up to five dwelling units per acre, mixed or infill development and infrastructure investment. Town centers, however, generally allow a broader range and greater intensity of future development.
Residents questioned whether Piney Point should remain a town center because of limited public water and sewer service, flooding and sea-level-rise risks, and restricted routes into and out of the community — particularly during an emergency.
The project team recommended changing Piney Point from a town center to a village center. The Planning Commission instead reached a consensus to leave the designation unchanged. That recommendation is now subject to review by the county commissioners.
Staff members told the board that changing the classification would not automatically downzone property or eliminate existing businesses.
“I really looked at it hard, and I’m not seeing where it would affect anything,” Deputy Director Brandy Glenn said.
Glenn said the Harry Lundeberg School of Seamanship could continue as a legally existing nonconforming use. The Piney Point petroleum terminal could remain industrial even if the surrounding area were eventually designated as a village center.
Commissioners indicated they want to examine the issue during their September work sessions.
Ferry Proposal Is Narrowed
Passenger ferry language has also been revised substantially.
An earlier version of the plan contained three ferry-related goals and multiple policies and action items in the Transportation Element. The Department of Economic Development asked that references to the Chesapeake Bay Passenger Ferry remain in the plan so the county could continue participating in regional conversations without committing to construct, operate or fund a specific service.
The latest recommendation removes the detailed ferry proposal from the Transportation Element and replaces it with narrower language in the Economic Development Element.
The proposed policy would support regional transportation opportunities that enhance tourism, including continued evaluation of regional passenger ferry opportunities when consistent with future county priorities.
A related action item would encourage partnerships connecting transportation services with waterfront communities, historic destinations, museums, parks, lodging, restaurants, recreational opportunities, agritourism destinations and local businesses.
Commissioners generally supported the revised approach.
“I think this is good revised language,” one commissioner said. “The ferry presentation that’s been given to us in the past does not fit transportation.”
The commissioner questioned whether a passenger-only service would generate meaningful economic benefits without local taxis, shuttles or other transportation capable of moving visitors beyond a ferry landing.
“I fully support it being talked about in the economic development section,” the commissioner said.
State Agencies Recommend Additional Changes
The public hearing draft was sent to the Maryland Department of Planning and neighboring jurisdictions April 30, as required by state law.
Reviews were received from the Maryland departments of Planning, Commerce, Housing and Community Development, Natural Resources and Transportation, along with the Maryland Historical Trust.
According to the state review memorandum, the comments generally found that the draft addressed state planning requirements. The Maryland Department of Commerce also found the proposal consistent with the state’s strategic plan.
The state comments led to several recommended refinements, including:
- Updating the county’s Priority Funding Area boundaries.
- Expanding the proposed housing study’s consideration of affordability and fair housing.
- Adding current St. Mary’s Transit System service and ridership information.
- Supporting “first and last mile” connections to fixed-route public transit.
- Prioritizing maintenance of existing county roads and drainage infrastructure.
- Preserving the former Washington, Brandywine and Point Lookout Railroad right of way for at least 50 years for possible future transit use while continuing to maintain it as the Three Notch Trail.
- Protecting submerged aquatic vegetation, fish spawning areas and low-development watersheds.
- Supporting adaptation of historic and archaeological resources threatened by flooding and other natural hazards.
- Recognizing St. Mary’s County’s participation in the Southern Maryland National Heritage Area and its status as a Certified Local Government for historic preservation purposes.
The memorandums also recommend correcting outdated maps around the Leonardtown Development District, reflecting annexations southwest of Leonardtown and improving map readability.
Public Comments Prompt Revisions
The Planning Commission conducted public hearings June 29 and July 7, followed by deliberations July 13 and Aug. 3.
Recommended revisions prompted by public comments include correcting household income data, adding the county’s marine-based assets to discussions about growth, strengthening language encouraging master plans for town centers and clarifying protections for existing residential areas near industrial and office uses.
Eight property-specific land-use applications were submitted during the planning process. One was withdrawn by the owners of Camp Maryland following public feedback. The remaining requests were considered by the Planning Commission and forwarded as part of its recommendations.
The county also conducted three broader community engagement windows and 10 Planning Commission work sessions between September 2025 and January 2026. The attested plan states that more than 1,000 community members participated in engagement activities during the approximately 22-month planning process.
Commissioners defended those outreach efforts in response to online criticism.
“There were many, many outreach efforts that were undertaken, with extensive time put in by county government,” one commissioner said.
The project website contains drafts, news releases, meeting videos, photographs and other records from the planning process.
Where The Plan Stands
The Planning Commission has completed its review and recommended adoption, but the St. Mary’s 2050 Plan has not been adopted by the county commissioners.
The next anticipated steps are:
- A commissioner work session Sept. 15.
- A possible second work session Sept. 22.
- A commissioner public hearing tentatively planned for Oct. 6 or Oct. 13.
- Further deliberation and a final vote before the Nov. 9 deadline, unless the board adopts a 60-day extension.
Residents can review the draft plan and related information through the county’s St. Mary’s 2050 project website.
Watch the full briefing below at 22:53
Got a tip or photo? Text us at 888-871-NEWS (6397) or email news@thebaynet.com.
Join The BayNet Membership for exclusive perks and zero ads.
Don’t miss a story—sign up for our newsletter!
