The St. Mary’s County Board of Appeals voted 3-2 Thursday to grant a motion for reconsideration in the Bradley Brook subdivision case, reopening the door to a new hearing on a 75-lot development the board had unanimously denied earlier this year over concerns about emergency vehicle access.
The board’s April decision rejected concept site and preliminary subdivision plans for Bradley Brook, proposed by Pembroke Bradley LLC, a subsidiary of Pembroke — the area’s largest nearby development, with 349 single-family homes built to date and roughly 1,362 residential units planned overall along Bradley Boulevard near Lexington Park. Attorneys for the applicant said the broader Pembroke development represents about $350 million in tax base for St. Mary’s County.
Board Attorney Steve Scott told the board Thursday that under its procedural rules and Maryland case law, a motion for reconsideration can be granted where an applicant shows fraud, a mistake of law or fact, or new facts and circumstances that weren’t reasonably available at the time of the original hearing. He cautioned the board that Thursday’s hearing was meant only to determine whether reconsideration was warranted — not to relitigate the case itself.
The board’s April order had centered on a single concern: Bradley Brook’s only proposed point of vehicle access is a single entrance off Bradley Boulevard, and board members worried that if that road became impassable in an emergency, residents would have no other way in or out. John Parlett, principal of Pembroke Bradley LLC, told the board Thursday that the development team had reached out to the adjacent Willowbrook community about connecting the two neighborhoods’ roads as a second access point but received “a definitive no.” In response, the applicant proposed a new option: a locked, gated connector road between the two developments equipped with Knox boxes — lockboxes that give fire, EMS and police the means to open the gates and let traffic flow through in an emergency, while keeping the connection closed to everyday traffic.
Parlett argued that option addressed the board’s stated basis for denial and wasn’t available at the time of the original hearing, since it depended on identifying a specific interconnection point and securing at least tacit cooperation from the adjacent property.
Board members were divided on whether that fix was sufficient. One member said plainly that “if it was presented to me today again with the current solution, my vote would be no,” while acknowledging he wasn’t opposed to hearing the case again. Another member said he wasn’t fully sold on the emergency-gate concept but saw value in giving the applicant a “Plan B” option to present at a full hearing, citing health, safety and welfare concerns for future residents. Board Attorney Scott also noted that if the board reopens the case for a full hearing, other issues beyond the single-access concern could surface and potentially factor into a new decision.
The board ultimately voted 3-2 to grant the motion for reconsideration, meaning Bradley Brook’s developers will get a new hearing rather than having to appeal the original denial to circuit court. County staff said the applicant will need to submit revised plans, which will have to go through review and be re-advertised before a hearing date is set — with staff estimating a November or December timeframe at the earliest. The board’s chairman reminded the applicant to carefully address the concerns raised during the original hearing when preparing revised plans.
In a separate matter at the same meeting, the board granted a joint request from St. Mary’s County, an appellant, and property owner Mr. Abel to postpone a zoning appeal, ZAAP 24-0997, to Sept. 24 after the appellant’s attorney said he had not received proper notice of the original hearing date.
