Council takes Spacemaker self‑storage plan under advisement after questions about transit‑corridor and zoning limits
April 14, 2025 | Prince George's County, Maryland
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Prince George's County District Council on April 14, 2025 took under advisement a detailed site plan (DSP-24003) filed by Layton Warehouse LLC to convert an existing warehouse and build a new consolidated storage building on West Hampton Avenue in Council District 6.
The council heard a presentation from county planning staff and a 30‑minute opening argument from the applicant before members raised legal and planning questions that the record did not fully resolve. The item will return for further review; no final decision was made at the hearing.
David Meyerholtz of the Prince George's County planning department said the Planning Board approved the detailed site plan on Jan. 30, 2025, and that the Planning Board resolution (PGC PB No. 2020‑513) was adopted Feb. 20, 2025. He said the 6.6‑acre site is located on the east side of West Hampton Avenue roughly 200 feet south of MD 214 (Central Avenue) and that the proposal includes renovating an existing roughly 72,000‑square‑foot building (Building A) and constructing a new 58,165‑square‑foot Building B, with associated site, stormwater and streetscape improvements.
Robert Antonette, attorney for the applicant, told the council the project would rehabilitate an obsolete warehouse, add sidewalks, improve stormwater management and increase the property tax base. Antonette said the current combined tax revenue for the site’s existing buildings is about $74,750 annually and that the proposed redevelopment would increase estimated annual property tax receipts to roughly $486,000. “We do respectfully request your approval of detailed site plan 24003,” Antonette said.
Antonette also described community benefits the applicant said it already provides and would continue if the project proceeds, including offering free or discounted container storage for local nonprofits such as Mana Food Bank, Believe (helping resettled Afghan immigrants) and grassrootscrisis.org. He said the applicant is exploring a potential community solar project on the large existing roof.
Opposition and legal questions came from Stan Brown, representing People Zoning Council. Brown pointed to a footnote in the prior I‑1 zoning that he said triggers a special‑exception requirement (footnote 33) if any portion of the lot falls within the subject area of a pending transit district overlay zoning map amendment initiated by the district council. Brown noted the Central Avenue Blue Line/Blue & Silver Line sector plan is in draft form and argued the record does not clearly show whether the property is within a pending transit district overlay (TDO). “If it is in the TDO, this use would be required to be approved by special exception,” Brown said.
Brown also raised a second concern based on the county zoning provisions governing consolidated storage: he said the approved preliminary plan of subdivision (Preliminary Plan 4‑2408, approved June 6, 2024) describes the current use as consolidated storage, which would trigger limits on expansion. Brown summarized requirements in the ordinance, saying that an expansion of an existing consolidated storage use after the ordinance date is limited to a maximum of 50 additional units and that any new consolidated storage must be at least a half‑mile from another consolidated storage use in the I‑1 zone. He said the application proposes 625 interior units in Building A, 442 interior units in Building B and 21 exterior units and that the administrative record does not include an inventory of existing unit counts within a half‑mile to allow the council to apply the ordinance’s numerical limits.
Staff responded that the Blue Line sector plan is in draft and that no TDO overlay currently applies to the site; staff noted the subject property is in the military installation overlay (MIO) for height limitations. The applicant disputed that the current use is an existing consolidated storage facility, describing the present operation as “dead storage” of containers (pods) that are not accessed on site by the public and arguing the detailed site plan complies with the applicable review criteria.
Council discussion focused on the policy tension between rehabilitating an aging industrial building and the county’s redevelopment aims for the Blue Line Corridor. One councilmember representing District 6 said the item would be taken under advisement to allow clarification of the overlay/TDO status and the consolidated storage unit counts; there was no formal vote on approval or denial at the session. The record includes addresses for the property listed by opponents as 208 West Hampton Avenue and 120 West Hampton Avenue, Capitol Heights.
Key clarifying details from the hearing: the applicant proposes to repurpose an existing roughly 72,000‑square‑foot warehouse (Building A) and build a 58,165‑square‑foot Building B; the applicant asserted the redevelopment would raise estimated annual property tax revenue from about $74,750 to about $486,000; an opponent said the application would create 625 interior units in Building A, 442 interior units in Building B and 21 exterior units; Planning Board resolution PGC PB No. 2020‑513 (adopted Feb. 20, 2025) is in the record; Preliminary Plan of Subdivision 4‑2408 (approved June 6, 2024) is cited in the administrative record.
Why it matters: the council must decide whether the proposed storage use is consistent with the county’s transit‑oriented redevelopment goals for the Blue Line Corridor and whether the application triggers special procedural or numerical limits in the zoning ordinance for consolidated storage. The outcome will affect redevelopment options and interim uses for aging industrial properties in an area the county has targeted for higher‑density, transit‑oriented development.
The council did not make a final decision. Staff and parties signaled the need for additional record clarification on (1) whether the parcel is subject to a pending transit district overlay created by the Blue Line Corridor sector plan and footnote 33, and (2) the inventory of existing consolidated storage units within the ordinance‑specified radius and how that inventory affects any unit‑limit calculation. The item will return to the council for further action.
Speakers quoted or cited in this report are listed in the speaker roster below. Quotations are verbatim when indicated.
The council heard a presentation from county planning staff and a 30‑minute opening argument from the applicant before members raised legal and planning questions that the record did not fully resolve. The item will return for further review; no final decision was made at the hearing.
David Meyerholtz of the Prince George's County planning department said the Planning Board approved the detailed site plan on Jan. 30, 2025, and that the Planning Board resolution (PGC PB No. 2020‑513) was adopted Feb. 20, 2025. He said the 6.6‑acre site is located on the east side of West Hampton Avenue roughly 200 feet south of MD 214 (Central Avenue) and that the proposal includes renovating an existing roughly 72,000‑square‑foot building (Building A) and constructing a new 58,165‑square‑foot Building B, with associated site, stormwater and streetscape improvements.
Robert Antonette, attorney for the applicant, told the council the project would rehabilitate an obsolete warehouse, add sidewalks, improve stormwater management and increase the property tax base. Antonette said the current combined tax revenue for the site’s existing buildings is about $74,750 annually and that the proposed redevelopment would increase estimated annual property tax receipts to roughly $486,000. “We do respectfully request your approval of detailed site plan 24003,” Antonette said.
Antonette also described community benefits the applicant said it already provides and would continue if the project proceeds, including offering free or discounted container storage for local nonprofits such as Mana Food Bank, Believe (helping resettled Afghan immigrants) and grassrootscrisis.org. He said the applicant is exploring a potential community solar project on the large existing roof.
Opposition and legal questions came from Stan Brown, representing People Zoning Council. Brown pointed to a footnote in the prior I‑1 zoning that he said triggers a special‑exception requirement (footnote 33) if any portion of the lot falls within the subject area of a pending transit district overlay zoning map amendment initiated by the district council. Brown noted the Central Avenue Blue Line/Blue & Silver Line sector plan is in draft form and argued the record does not clearly show whether the property is within a pending transit district overlay (TDO). “If it is in the TDO, this use would be required to be approved by special exception,” Brown said.
Brown also raised a second concern based on the county zoning provisions governing consolidated storage: he said the approved preliminary plan of subdivision (Preliminary Plan 4‑2408, approved June 6, 2024) describes the current use as consolidated storage, which would trigger limits on expansion. Brown summarized requirements in the ordinance, saying that an expansion of an existing consolidated storage use after the ordinance date is limited to a maximum of 50 additional units and that any new consolidated storage must be at least a half‑mile from another consolidated storage use in the I‑1 zone. He said the application proposes 625 interior units in Building A, 442 interior units in Building B and 21 exterior units and that the administrative record does not include an inventory of existing unit counts within a half‑mile to allow the council to apply the ordinance’s numerical limits.
Staff responded that the Blue Line sector plan is in draft and that no TDO overlay currently applies to the site; staff noted the subject property is in the military installation overlay (MIO) for height limitations. The applicant disputed that the current use is an existing consolidated storage facility, describing the present operation as “dead storage” of containers (pods) that are not accessed on site by the public and arguing the detailed site plan complies with the applicable review criteria.
Council discussion focused on the policy tension between rehabilitating an aging industrial building and the county’s redevelopment aims for the Blue Line Corridor. One councilmember representing District 6 said the item would be taken under advisement to allow clarification of the overlay/TDO status and the consolidated storage unit counts; there was no formal vote on approval or denial at the session. The record includes addresses for the property listed by opponents as 208 West Hampton Avenue and 120 West Hampton Avenue, Capitol Heights.
Key clarifying details from the hearing: the applicant proposes to repurpose an existing roughly 72,000‑square‑foot warehouse (Building A) and build a 58,165‑square‑foot Building B; the applicant asserted the redevelopment would raise estimated annual property tax revenue from about $74,750 to about $486,000; an opponent said the application would create 625 interior units in Building A, 442 interior units in Building B and 21 exterior units; Planning Board resolution PGC PB No. 2020‑513 (adopted Feb. 20, 2025) is in the record; Preliminary Plan of Subdivision 4‑2408 (approved June 6, 2024) is cited in the administrative record.
Why it matters: the council must decide whether the proposed storage use is consistent with the county’s transit‑oriented redevelopment goals for the Blue Line Corridor and whether the application triggers special procedural or numerical limits in the zoning ordinance for consolidated storage. The outcome will affect redevelopment options and interim uses for aging industrial properties in an area the county has targeted for higher‑density, transit‑oriented development.
The council did not make a final decision. Staff and parties signaled the need for additional record clarification on (1) whether the parcel is subject to a pending transit district overlay created by the Blue Line Corridor sector plan and footnote 33, and (2) the inventory of existing consolidated storage units within the ordinance‑specified radius and how that inventory affects any unit‑limit calculation. The item will return to the council for further action.
Speakers quoted or cited in this report are listed in the speaker roster below. Quotations are verbatim when indicated.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meetingSponsors
Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Maryland articles free in 2025
