Two town center residential projects with long histories were moved along May 15 by a majority of the Calvert County Planning Commission.
In both cases, the three members seeking deferrals of action voiced skepticism about the applicants’ contention that traffic studies have shown the likely addition of more motor vehicles won’t result in rush hour gridlock.
The projects discussed were Magnolia Ridge in Prince Frederick and Lusby Villas. The county’s planning and zoning staff recommended approvals of the projects’ preliminary plans with conditions.
In a memo to the planning commission from planner Christine Finamore, Magnolia Ridge is described as a 30.37-acre parcel “with frontage on Fox Run Boulevard as well as Dares Beach Road. The proposed subdivision plan includes 164 townhouse lots, two multi-family buildings located on one lot, along with recreational amenities as well as open space.”
Planning commission member Christopher Gadway said that he has seen the flow of traffic halted on Fox Run Boulevard when school buses come and go from Calvert Middle School to subsequently access Route 2/4 and found claims by a traffic engineering consultant that linking the boulevard to Dares Beach Road was going to improve the traffic situation, especially with the addition of hundreds of vehicles from the proposed development.
Anthony Olekson of COA Barrett, the project’s principal engineer, affirmed the consultant’s study determined “acceptable levels of service.”
“We don’t have enough information,” Gadway said. “I just don’t understand how the intersection will get better.”
The department staff report states the Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration “has no objection to [the] concept plan allowing applicant to move forward with county approval.”
Attending the meeting virtually, planning commission member Lisa Williams made a motion to approve the preliminary plan as proposed with conditions. Gadway said he could not support the approval until he had a chance to review the traffic study.
Along with fellow planning commissioners James S. McQueen Sr. and V. Wilson Freeland, Gadway voted opposed. The 3-3 tie was broken by acting chairman Gregory Kernan.
Lusby Villas would add 276 multi-family dwelling units to one of the most densely populated areas of Calvert — the combined populations of Lusby, Chesapeake Ranch Estates and Drum Point total over 15,000.
Lusby resident McQueen indicated skepticism that the proposed development’s location on Lusby Parkway, which is currently a dead-end road, would be able to handle the potential motor vehicle traffic from the new subdivision. Vehicles would end up on either Rousby Hall Road west or HG Truman Road north to eventually access Route 2/4.
“I live there. I see it,” McQueen said. “We’re going to add more cars to the roadway. I’d love to see a traffic plan that shows this isn’t going to be a problem.”
Adding to the problematic nature of the Lusby Villas project is an existing memorandum of understanding drafted nearly 20 years ago calling for a 2-acre tract designated as Lusby’s “village green” to be placed in escrow by Lusby Town Center LLC and deeded to the county.
In March 2021 when Lusby Villas came before the planning commission, Freeland, who had just been appointed to the panel, opined the memorandum appeared to be “terminated.”
John Mattingly, the commission’s attorney, said there has been no change the MOU.
Noting the concept site plan was approved several years ago, planner Olivia Vidotta said the action before the planning commission at the May 15 meeting was “for the creation of one buildable lot for the proposed project.”
Regarding a proposal to extend the Lusby Parkway, JR Cosgrove, public works director, said that would be a county project, but since it has no funding it is not in Calvert’s capital improvement plan.
“There’s a lot of unknowns,” Gadway said in motioning for deferral of moving the project forward. As he did with the Prince Frederick project decision, Gadway requested a deferral until better traffic study data was available.
A majority voted down the motion and by an identical tally then voted to send the project forward.
During public comment, Bob Estes, representing Friends of Hunting Creek, expressed disappointment that the planning commission’s majority didn’t show more concern about the potential adverse impacts on traffic the two multi-unit subdivision projects would bring.
“It’s not likely we’re going to build enough roads to make it [traffic management] adequate,” Estes said. “I didn’t see a level of concern.”
Estes labeled what he saw at the meeting “rubber-stamping versus detailed knowledge.”
Toohey elected chairmanWith the recent departure from the planning commission of Maria Buehler, who chose not to seek reappointment for another term, the members chose a new chairman.
John Toohey, who has served on the panel since 2017 and is currently in his second term, received a unanimous vote to be chair. Kernan, who had served as vice chair, was nominated and reelected to that post.
The election of officers was held at the end of the May 15 meeting.
Most Popular
Comments / 0