La Plata, MD – Despite warnings that one of Charles County’s prime resources—Mattawoman Creek—is in danger of degradation from development, the Charles County Planning Commission narrowly approved preliminary site plans for Guilford, encompassing 183 acres, 438 units, which include 127 single family home, 171 townhomes and 140 apartments, Monday, May 18.
Planning Commission Chairman Gilbert “Buddy” Bowling broke a 2-2 tie with his deciding vote in favor of the project.
Charles County Planner Heather Kelly told the board that the project on Billingsley Road near Bryans Road had addressed habitat protection for wetlands at the northern end of the site. She added that stormwater management has been addressed.
Charles County Resource Manager John Mudd told commission members that the applicant had submitted a traffic study.
“They analyzed future congestion along with traffic volume associated with this project,” Mudd said, adding that the intersection with Route 227 and Billingsley Road “does not meet level of requirements.”
It was necessary for the applicant to study the problem and come back with a mitigation addition of a 500-foot long left turn lane on Route 227 to accommodate left turning vehicles onto Billingsley Road, he said.
“That would then be acceptable,” Mudd added.
“In terms of road mitigation, does this project rely upon the Cross County Connector any longer, even though the easement is there?” Board member Wayne Magoon asked.
“None of the property construction design for this project is dependent upon the Cross County Connector,” Mudd replied.
Commissioner Nancy Schertler noted that back in 2011, the county admitted there was a problem with the Kings’ View subdivision, which was approved under the assumption that the Cross County Connector was going to be built.
“What has changed that wouldn’t make this true today?” Schertler wanted to know.
“The Cross County Connector at the time was viewed as an access point for those projects,” Mudd stated. “When it essentially evaporated, those projects were only left with one access. Guilford will have two points of access on Billingsley Road.”
“If the roads are too congested, a project cannot be approved until the traffic issues are addressed,” Schertler said. “How can we justify increasing traffic by 60 percent?”
“This project meets the statutory requirements,” Mudd responded. “Basically, what our report is saying is that this project has met the requirement issues of safety and are really not relevant to the test aspect of study. Safety is inherent in every project approved in Charles County. Staff finds that this project has met the test.”
“The problem I have is with the traffic study,” Commission Member Rosemin Daya offered. “That road is already jammed packed. I have a hard time believing that a 500-foot lane is going to solve that. And you’re adding thousands of cars to that road,” she said.
Chief of Resource and Infrastructure Management Jason Groth responded that the county has plans to upgrade Billingsley Road since the Cross County Connector is not moving forward.
“I understand the study is being done,” Daya said, “but those issues have been taking place for so long now, we’re going to add more fuel to the fire.”
Jay Parker, one of the architects of the project, said Guilford is an “environmentally aware and environmentally themed community.
“It is part of the town of Bryans Road,” he added. “It is located entirely within the area of Indian Head and Bryans Road town core. The project will have lower density along the Mattawoman Creek, which is more than a mile away.
“There is an undisturbed area of the community,” Parker said. “This makes the project a real amenity for the community, a community that is really conscious of the environmental area around it.”
Parker said plans include a hiker/bike trail and three parks. Construction of housing units would take place more toward the town center of the proposed Bryans Road town core, away from the natural resources located closer to Mattawoman Creek, he added.
“Can you tell me if any of these properties will be offered as affordable housing?” Daya asked.
“At this point, we don’t plan on any,” Parker admitted.
“Mattawoman Creek is at a tipping point,” Schertler noted. “That is a concern. I understand you have been working on this a long time and started it thinking there was going to be a Cross County Connector.”
Member Joan Jones made a motion to approve the preliminary site plan, which was seconded by Magoon.
Schertler and Daya voted against the proposal. That left the final vote to Bowling, citing that the applicants had met all the requirement placed on them by the county staff, and voted in favor of the project.
Contact Joseph Norris at joe.norris@thebaynet.com