Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recreation Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies variance for outdoor paintball arena near Leonardtown apartments
Summary
The Board denied a variance request that would have reduced the 200‑foot setback for an outdoor paintball facility at a Gregory Lane property; staff and neighbors said the proposed outdoor use would create unacceptable noise and lighting impacts.
The St. Mary’s County Board of Appeals denied a variance request on Nov. 8 from Christopher (Crystal) Melton and US BBA LLC to reduce the required 200‑foot setback for a minor outdoor recreational facility (paintball arena) adjacent to residential property in Leonardtown.
The property owner sought a reduction to allow a 110‑ft by 75‑ft outdoor paintball court and associated 20‑foot netting and lighting on a parcel zoned industrial but adjacent to high‑density residential. The applicant said the court would be contained by 20‑foot‑tall nets, would be sited behind a tree line and the building, and would operate primarily during daytime hours; he described the paint pellets as “biodegradable, water soluble” and said the business would provide a safe, legal venue for local youth.
Christopher (Crystal) Melton, who identified himself as an owner of the Family Ventures/US BBA property, said the company planned to “clean up” an overgrown parcel and provide supervised activities for children. Melton told the board the proposed layout would leave about 45 feet from the court to the property line and that the nearest apartment building is roughly 200 feet beyond the tree line.
Multiple residents and the property manager submitted opposition; Frank Shader, a nearby resident, read a neighborhood petition and told the board, “The lights and the noise that would invade our neighborhood would diminish both our home value and our quality of life.” Staff recommended denial, concluding that the 200‑foot setback exists to mitigate noise, lighting and other impacts and that the parcel is not suitable for the proposed outdoor facility because it cannot meet the setback requirement.
Board members discussed noise, safety and lighting controls, and recognized the applicant’s arguments about cleanup and supervised recreation. The board concluded the variance standards were not met and voted to deny the requested setback reduction. Staff will prepare the written order documenting the denial; the applicant may appeal the decision to circuit court within 30 days after the order is signed.
