Council hears appeal on Bailey's Village Lot 10 CDP; refers amendment to staff to prepare order with conditions

The Prince George's County District Council on Sept. 14 heard competing arguments over a proposed amendment to the comprehensive design plan (CDP 9306-06) for Bailey's Village Lot 10 in Council District 9, and then voted to refer the matter to staff to prepare an order of approval with conditions.

Opponents, represented in oral argument by Randy Griffin, told the council the planning board's resolution does not adequately explain how the proposed development remains compatible with the established residential community that has grown up around the parcel since the original 1993 approvals. "It has been over 3 decades since the original comprehensive design plan was approved," Griffin said, arguing the record needs present-day analysis of scale, traffic, parking demand and neighborhood compatibility to justify approval.

Park and Planning staff Emery Huang summarized the application and the planning board recommendation. The amendment concerns Lot 10 — a 1.64-acre parcel located within a 19.98-acre local activity center (LAC) area of the Preserve at Piscataway — and seeks to reduce the minimum required nonresidential square footage in the LAC to a combined 6,000 to 10,000 square feet, down from earlier CDP ranges that contemplated as much as 20,000–30,000 square feet of retail and 10,000–15,000 square feet of office across the village.

Applicant counsel Nate Foreman said the request is a narrow, proportionate adjustment tied to the fact that most land in the LAC has been developed for housing, leaving only 1.64 acres available. "We requested and received approval to reduce this number to between 6 and 10000 square feet of combined office and retail space," Foreman said, arguing the change complies with the original rezoning and is supported by the planning board's findings and conditions.

Council members discussed whether the amendment meets the 'spirit' as well as the letter of the original plan, and asked about economic development impacts. Councilmember Adams asked whether the proposal could create jobs or economic activity in the area; council members and staff noted limits on downzoning absent a plan amendment and referenced a 2022 denial of a request to remove all nonresidential uses.

Following discussion, Councilmember Harrison moved and Miss Ivy seconded a referral to staff to prepare an order of approval with conditions in accordance with the planning board decision. The motion passed on roll call, 7-0 (recorded ayes: Vice Chair Olsen; Mister Adams; Miss Adam Stafford; Mister DeNoga; Mister Harrison; Miss Hunter; Miss Ivy).