Maple Lawn PDP amendment seeks apartments and higher density; petitioners call it infill and consistent with county plan

Petitioners presented a second amendment to the Maple Lawn Preliminary Development Plan on July 15 that would (1) incorporate approximately 2 acres of Bookway parcels into the PDP boundary, (2) reclassify roughly 4.1 acres within the business district from "employment" to "other residential" to accommodate an apartment building, and (3) raise overall PDP residential density from about 2.2 to 3 dwelling units per gross acre.

"This is thoughtful reuse of land within an established community," said Kevin Foster, the project planner. Foster told the hearing examiner that much of the site proposed for residential conversion consists of surface parking and previously disturbed land, and that the amendment would make use of existing roads, utilities, schools and retail services already in Maple Lawn.

The amendment proposes an apartment building of about 260 units as the multifamily element; petitioners and witnesses stated the overall PDP increase in units from the amendments would result in a larger total build-out for Maple Lawn than currently permitted. Petitioners also repeated a voluntary commitment that 15% of units in the proposed multifamily building would be MIHUs; developer Michael Book said that commitment will be binding and "in writing." Under the MXD rules, petitioners said multifamily units would remain below the 30% maximum allotment.

Petitioners argued the amendment is consistent with HOCO by Design and the county's housing master plan. "Mixed‑use neighborhoods are envisioned to contain apartment complexes and condominiums," Foster said while reading the county plan. Housing advocates called the change an important mechanism to expand rental and affordable housing options where infrastructure exists. Jessamine Duvall of Bridges to Housing Stability described the county's housing shortage and said adding apartment and MIHU units in Maple Lawn fills a gap: "It would produce the first apartment homes within Maple Lawn and the first MIHUs in that community," she said.

Opposition focused on a range of implementation and neighborhood concerns. Protestants and several residents pointed to the planning board's prior rejections and squarely asked how the current plan addresses earlier objections. They pressed petitioners and DPZ on traffic modeling (roundabout operations), school capacity (including whether schools rely on temporary classroom trailers), and policy tradeoffs associated with increasing PDP density across the larger Maple Lawn area. DPZ witness Julia Sauer and petitioners said technical analyses for traffic and school adequacy are performed at later plan phases (comprehensive sketch plan and school adequacy review) and that the PDP amendment directs density to areas already planned and served by infrastructure.

Setback and design details were also discussed: petitioners requested a reduction of the PDP's standard open‑space setback from MD‑216 for multistory residential to a 30‑foot setback in order to position the building to address the street. Foster said the actual building line would be farther from the roadway in practice (roughly 80–100 feet measured from the MD‑216 right of way) and that final noise and design mitigation would be settled at later stages.

The PDP evidentiary hearing proceeded into testimony and cross‑examination; the hearing was continued so petitioners can present additional technical testimony, including traffic analysis. The examiner set the PDP hearing to resume July 23 at 5:30 p.m.

Why it matters: the amendment would add rental housing and MIHUs within an existing activity center rather than expanding into undeveloped land. Supporters say that advances county housing goals; opponents want more immediate, site‑specific answers about traffic, schools and neighborhood fit before approving higher PDP density.