Artist’s rendering of the proposed Hollywood Commercial Center.
Leonardtown, MD — Several members of the St. Mary’s County Planning Commission blame the state for the overturning of their denial of the Hollywood Commercial Center by the appeals board. The planning commission turned down the 14-acre project on a 5-2 vote March 28. The appeals board unanimously overturned that decision and approved the project on July 21.
The proposed shopping center is located at the intersection of Route 235 and Sotterley Road and would have entrances and exits on Route 235, Sotterley Road and Old Three Notch Road. A CVS pharmacy and Burch Mart are proposed to relocate there.
The planners conducted a postmortem on their failure to prevail in the case at their Aug. 8 regular meeting. At the meeting County Attorney George Sparling explained that the appeals board would sign an order at their Aug. 11 meeting that would finalize the approval. After that, Sparling explained that the decision could be appealed to the circuit court. But he said those appeals usually are over procedural matters and not the content of hearings,
Sparling was asked by Planning Commission Vice Chairman Shelby Guazzo to give an example of a procedural error. He responded that the Charles County Board of Appeals had failed to allow public testimony at a hearing and that decision was appealed.
Guazzo and Planning Commission Chairman Howard Thompson attended the three appeals board hearings that led to the decision. They were the most vocal in their criticism of the State Highway Administration (SHA) in the case. The planners had unsuccessfully attempted to get a state representative to attend their hearings on the case and no one from the state appeared at the appeals board hearings.
The planning commission’s main concerns about the project related to traffic and access to and from it. They were especially concerned about the entrance and exit to the commercial center from Sotterley Road. The developer plans to widen that section of the road from two lanes to five lanes to accommodate traffic.
The planners would have preferred a major Route 235 entrance with a light of the existing crossover for the Hollywood Volunteer Fire Department. But developer’s attorney Christopher Longmore insisted that the state had rejected that plan because the signalized intersection would be too close to the one at Route 245/Sotterley Road.
Thompson, however, pointed out that the state denial of that entrance was 10 years ago and for another proposal on the same site. He would have liked to have had state representatives in front of him to discuss that issue.
Commission member Martin Siebert said in his personal experience with SHA, they have their rules and stick by them. “They are kind of not very negotiable,” he said.
But Guazzo disagreed. She said the state had given tentative approval to the concept site plan that included sight distances on Sotterley Road that don’t follow the state’s own guidelines.
In criticizing the state, Thompson was careful to say that he thought the appeals board did a good job. Guazzo wasn’t quite so kind, saying there were very few questions asked by the board members during their hearings.
The planning commission had a say in the concept site plan by county zoning regulations which give the authority for approving the final site plan to the direction of the Office Land Use and Growth Management (LUGM). Longmore successfully argued before the appeals board that the traffic issues were more properly resolved by the LUGM director and his staff.
LUGM Director Phil Shire told the planners that he would have to receive approval from the State Highway Administration for the final site plan before he would approve it.
The planners had argued that they had authority over traffic and roads under the general health, safety and general welfare provisions of the zoning ordinance.
The preliminary approval by SHA of the project was by letter and was conditioned on the state getting more specific engineering information during the final site plan process. But lacking any person to ask questions to, the planning commission and the appeals board were left with interpretations and characterizations by the developer and LUGM staff on that preliminary approval.
Thompson suggested that the planning commission go right to the top and express concerns to Governor Larry Hogan about their inability to get a state highway representative at their meetings.
Siebert said what was really needed was a work session with state representatives to discuss the process that the planners feel is in a disconnect mode right now. Commission member Dan Ichniowski suggested that the right person at the table should be the state highway district engineer, who has an office in Annapolis.
Since the county highway department works regularly with the state, Shire said he would work with them to try to facilitate such a workshop session.
The planners will get another look at that intersection. A separate eight-acre tract to the north of the 14-acre shopping center will have to come before the planning commission for a concept plan approval. A car dealership is reportedly coming onto that site.
Contact Dick Myers at dick.myers@thebaynet.com
