Oakwood Preserve

A 31-year Brock Hall resident argued the project is 1990s-style sprawl that will worsen flooding toward Upper Marlboro and Route 202 traffic, and that the Planning Board record was defective and notice flawed; he asked for denial or a de novo remand.

A Brock Hall Estates equestrian and cyclist concurred with Collins and added that the county leads the state in forest loss and that Route 202 is dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians; she asked for reversal or remand.

Smith detailed the missing record documents — the SDP, floodplain study, NRI, stormwater concept and tree conservation plan — and questioned notice mailings, urging disapproval or remand.

The applicant's attorney argued the opponents lack standing, the record was complete, the 2018 floodplain study remains valid under DPI guidance, and 62% of the site will remain wooded; he asked the council to affirm the Planning Board.

A 31-year Brock Hills resident urged the council to reverse or remand the Planning Board's approval, citing an incomplete public record before the hearing, an obsolete 2018 floodplain study, 50 acres of forest clearing, and cumulative traffic impacts along the MD 202 corridor.

A Brock Hall Estates gardener and equestrian echoed the procedural objections and added that the county leads the state in forest loss, trails have become unsafe, and 112 new homes would worsen cyclist and pedestrian safety on MD 202.

In rebuttal, Smith argued the administrative record posted before the Planning Board hearing was missing the SDP itself, the floodplain study, NRI, stormwater plan, and tree conservation plan, and cited a prior Hyattsville case where mailing defects forced an application withdrawal.