Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Buffer Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board of Appeals approves Toyota of Southern Maryland buffer variance with planting condition

2226779 · February 5, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The St. Mary's County Board of Appeals unanimously approved a variance allowing Toyota of Southern Maryland to omit a six-foot berm in a required buffer, conditioning approval on a planting plan and screening of the first row of cars.

The St. Mary’s County Board of Appeals on Sept. 25 unanimously approved a variance request by Toyota of Southern Maryland to eliminate a required six-foot berm in a critical-area buffer, subject to a planting plan and screening conditions.

The board found that the standards for granting a variance and the objectives of section 63.4 of the St. Mary’s County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance had been met. Gertrude Veronica Neal, a board member, moved to approve the variance; George Edmonds seconded the motion. The board voted unanimously in favor.

The approval requires the applicant to submit a planting plan to the Department of Land Use and Growth Management showing native species and a combination of trees and shrubs sufficient to screen the first row of cars adjacent to the buffer yard. The planting plan must be reviewed and approved by the department.

Board members and staff noted the procedural steps: the board accepted the staff report of findings of fact before voting, and staff will prepare an order reflecting the board’s decision. The order will be prepared and signed within 60 days; a 30-day appeal period to circuit court follows the date the order is signed. Any action taken before the order is final would be at the applicant’s risk, and the county will mail a copy of the signed order to the applicant.

The motion as read on the record cited the ordinance and imposed the planting- and screening-related condition. No additional public testimony was taken at the Sept. 25 session because this matter was continued from a prior hearing and the board indicated it would rely on the revised staff report and the record.