Town Denies Singletree Quadplex

The Leonardtown Town Council voted 3-2 on May 11 to deny a proposal for a four-unit residential building in the Singletree neighborhood, following a public hearing dominated by resident opposition over neighborhood compatibility and character.

Residents filled Town Hall to weigh in on the concept plan proposed by WM Davis Development for a 0.44-acre property identified as Phase 8, Lot 11 of the Singletree subdivision off Miss Bessie Drive.

According to the council’s staff report, the proposal called for a 3,600-square-foot, two-story quadplex containing four one-bedroom units, with two units located on each floor.

Original Singletree PUD from meeting documents

Singletree, a 123.5-acre planned unit development approved in 1984, includes 165 single-family home lots, 14 commercial office or business lots and 10 duplex lots. Original PUD documents included in the meeting packet designated the property for “multi-family townhouses, duplexes, garden apartments or single-family detached” homes.

Town planning staff recommended approval of the project, and the Leonardtown Planning and Zoning Board also recommended approval following its April 6 review.

Screenshot of staff presentation slide

Still, concerns emerged during both meetings about whether the proposal fit the character of the surrounding neighborhood, which is primarily composed of single-family homes.

About a dozen residents spoke against the project during the public hearing. Residents raised concerns about traffic, fire access, architectural design and whether the proposal complied with neighborhood covenants and restrictions.

Residents pointed to a March 2001 survey plat for Singletree Phase 8 that identified the property as single-family residential. They also cited neighborhood covenants requiring a “Williamsburg” architectural theme, arguing the proposed design did not meet those standards.

Residents fill Town Hall

Council members Nick Colvin, Mary Slade and Jay Mattingly voted to deny the project, citing concerns that the building was incompatible with the neighborhood’s character.

Council member Heather Earhart proposed postponing the vote to allow additional information to be reviewed. The applicant’s attorney, Jackie Meisner, supported delaying the decision, saying some public comments “require a factual response that can’t happen this evening.”

Meisner was referring to residents’ claims that the proposal violated neighborhood regulations and covenants.

Questions also emerged about whether the project could return before the council in the future. Town Planner Mike Bailey said denied projects generally cannot return for two years unless at least 10% of the proposal is substantially changed.

However, Town Administrator Laschelle McKay said that interpretation would need to be confirmed by the town attorney.

Before the vote, Meisner said she wanted “on record” that the council’s decision may have relied on inaccurate information, adding there was “some basis here for undermining the decision.”

The council ultimately denied the proposal in a 3-2 vote. The applicant retains the right to appeal the decision in court.

___________

Informed St. Mary’s remains paywall free for everyone with your support. Donate here to support this important work.