Streamlining Development Review Work Group Meeting - May 13, 2026
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Streamlining Development Review Work Group Meeting - May 13, 2026
The Prince George's County Streamlining Development Review Work Group held its second meeting on May 13, 2026, to discuss improving the timing and processes for development review applications, particularly detailed site plans. The meeting featured a presentation from Sherry Connor, Division Chief of the Planning Department, on the site plan process, followed by discussion among work group members on challenges, opportunities, and potential recommendations.
Discussion Items
- Presentation on Detailed Site Plan Process: Sherry Connor presented an overview of the detailed site plan process under Subtitle 27 of the zoning ordinance. She explained that detailed site plans depict site development details such as building location, landscaping, parking, and signage, and must demonstrate conformance with applicable zone standards. The process includes a pre-application conference, pre-application neighborhood meetings, submittal to the planning department, staff review, and a public hearing before the planning board. Key challenges include lead times for pre-application conferences, limited information at early stages, and the applicant's investment in plans without certainty of requirements. Opportunities include overlapping public notices, concurrent review with subdivision and permitting, and possible exemptions for smaller projects. Risks include incomplete submittals leading to multiple resubmissions and extended timelines.
- Timeline Variability: Connor presented examples of recent detailed site plan timelines, showing significant variation. A multifamily development of 405 units took about 18 months from pre-application to planning board. A townhouse development took 22 months, while a non-residential development took over two years. Most time was attributed to applicant-led activities such as preparing submissions and addressing comments, with no mandatory time frames for those steps. The planning department's codified time frames are generally met once an application is accepted.
- Work Group Discussion: Work group members raised several points:
- Greg Smith (community representative) observed that presentations and agendas are not posted online in advance, hindering meaningful discussion and public transparency. He noted that applicants sometimes submit incomplete applications and that the planning director waives requirements without explanation. He suggested extending the statutory review deadline from 70 to 120 days to give staff and agencies more time for thorough review.
- Matt Dedesco (developer representative) countered that delays between pre-application and submission are often due to prerequisite approvals (e.g., natural resource inventory, site development concept plans) which are required before acceptance, not applicant choice. He emphasized that applicants are not intentionally delaying.
- Ms. Camp (work group member) supported that view, saying both applicants and staff work hard, and the process should not be seen as adversarial. She noted that the new zoning ordinance requires learning by all parties.
- Mr. Jordan (work group member) echoed the need for materials beforehand and asked for Connor’s recommendations for streamlining. Connor mentioned that the planning department held a charrette with the development community and is synthesizing feedback into a white paper.
- Mr. Villegas (work group member) suggested aligning the cycles of prerequisite plans (e.g., stormwater concept plans) with the detailed site plan to avoid months of sequential processing.
- Mr. Franklin (work group member) recommended allowing stormwater management concept plans, natural resource inventory, and sediment control plans to be filed concurrently with the detailed site plan rather than required before acceptance.
- Mr. Monroe (work group member) identified four key areas: concurrent vs. sequential processing, reducing submission cycles, clarity around checklists, and early inter-agency coordination. He also suggested a unified dashboard for applicants to track review progress.
- Director Hightower (chair) proposed creating a guidebook for participants with different knowledge levels, which received general agreement.
Key Outcomes
- The work group identified several potential recommendations to expedite site plan review:
- Create a guidebook explaining the development process for applicants and community members.
- Allow concurrent filing of prerequisite plans (stormwater, natural resource inventory, sediment control) with the detailed site plan, rather than requiring prior approval.
- Enforce a hard completeness gate at application submission, with a capped number of review cycles (e.g., two) or fees for additional iterations.
- Mandate early coordination meetings with all relevant agencies during pre-application to provide integrated comments.
- Reduce the ability to waive the review period for detailed site plans.
- Extend the statutory review deadline from 70 to 90 or 120 days to allow more thorough review.
- Leverage AI technology for pre-check of applications to identify missing information early.
- Expand applicability of site plan exemptions for smaller residential projects.
- Develop a unified dashboard for applicants to track the status of their review across agencies (noted as a heavy lift).
- No formal votes were taken; recommendations will be submitted via an Excel spreadsheet or email to staff for inclusion in the streamlining work group's spreadsheet.
- The next meeting is scheduled for May 20, 2026, at 2 p.m., to discuss master plans, sectional map amendments, zoning map amendments, and other topics.
Meeting Transcript
Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to our second streamlining development review work group meeting. Today we are going to let's let's have a welcome and then we can do attendance. It looks like everyone is here. A lot of people are here. So we'll just jump right into the discussion topics. Today we're going to have a presentation from the planning department, Miss Sherry Connor, who's a division chief there. She will talk about the development review process. We'll go over improving the timing for development review application processes and possible consolidation of those applications. And at the end, hopefully we will have some solid recommendations on how to expedite site plan review processes. So if I may uh turn it over to Ms. Connor. Thank you so much for coming and providing your briefing. Yes, thank you for the introduction, Director Hightower. Appreciate that. I'm going to share my screen so we can get started. All right. Can everyone see that? Great. Yes. So last week we went over the process for preliminary plan of subdivision, and this week we're going to go over the detailed site plan process. Of course, the detailed site plan is under the regulations of subtitle 27, the zoning ordinance. A detailed site plan is a plan depicting the site development details. It includes all of the design elements such as the building, location, landscaping, parking, other paved surfaces, signage, public art, all elements that you would find in what the site looks and feels like. This plan has to demonstrate conformance with applicable zone standards, any standards that might be specific to that use, and development standards of the zoning ordinance. So last week when we talked about preliminary plans, that's really the layout of the land, the lots, the streets, open space parcels, and then the detailed site plan is everything that is built on those lots and parcels. This is step four. Last week we were at step three for the subdivision preliminary plan, which I indicated was typically the first step in the development process. But the main difference between the preliminary plan and site plan, and you'll see that the process looks very similar, is that the site plan is appealable, can be called up for review by the county council. So when does detailed site plan apply? Well, um detailed site plans are required prior to issuance of building permits for any development, unless that development is specifically exempted under the regulations. Certain uses such as medical clinic or a religious facility may require a detailed site plan because of the specific use, regardless of its size. But the general exemptions include small home improvements, signage, routine uh maintenance and repair, one dwelling, either single family, two-family, or three-family, um, less than 10 multifamily or townhouse dwellings, and generally less than 25,000 square feet of gross floor area, or less than 10,000 square feet and 10 dwellings for mixed use development. And again, those specific uses that I mentioned and the examples given here, such as state licensed medical clinic, require a detailed site plan regardless of size. So we look at both the general applicability and the specific use applicability. Again, the detailed site plan process looks very similar to the process that we went over last week for preliminary plan. That pre-application conference is required along with that pre-application neighborhood meeting. It follows the same submittal process to the planning department, determination of completeness, staff review and public hearing before the planning board, except that after the planning board makes their decision and provides the notification, it may be appealed or elected to be reviewed by the district council. And again, a lot of this information is the same that we went over last week, that pre-application conference. Again, is the applicant's first opportunity to meet with staff and receive major issue comments or process confirmation of the approvals needed for their proposed development. It may be very conceptual and limited information need to be submitted at this point. Following that, the applicant will hold their pre-application neighborhood meetings. They have to do notice as with the pre-application conference, informational mailing is done, and then again mailed notice and signed postings for the pre-application neighborhood meeting to really present that project to the neighborhood and get their feedback. So some of the challenges remain the same as with the preliminary plan, including lead time for pre-application conferences, limited information available at this stage. And then again, that investment or cost to fully prepare plans and documents without fully knowing what may be required or major changes that need to be made. Additional community meetings as well may be held during these stages. The opportunities there are to overlap the public notice, just as we talked about with the preliminary plan, not only can the public notice be kind of overlapped with the pre-application conference and pre-application neighborhood meeting, but also with the detailed site plan and the preliminary plan, including and holding meetings and providing those notifications for both applications at the same time. Preparation of prerequisite plans, of course, should be done in advance to help expedite the process, such as the natural resource inventory plan. Opportunities also include possible exemptions for smaller residential projects, such as 10 or fewer single family dwellings, two family or three-family dwellings. Those are currently anything resulting in 10 or fewer dwelling units is a minor preliminary plan.
openpublica.com