Board of Appeals denies request to restore third dwelling unit, impervious surface on St. Mary's County waterfront lot

John Heldorfer, a Piney Point resident, asked the St. Mary’s County Board of Appeals on Sept. 27 to allow him to replace a mobile home and reestablish a previously existing third dwelling unit on his 1.5‑acre waterfront property in the Rural Preservation District (RPD). The board denied two variance requests — one to exceed the RPD density limit and one to restore grandfathered impervious surface — finding the applications did not meet standards in the county zoning ordinance and critical‑area rules.

Heldorfer told the board his property was flooded by Hurricane Isabel and subsequent storms, and that he has been repairing damage and trying to replace the removed unit since. He said FEMA estimated about $50,000 in damage and that insurance covered less than half. “All I want is to replace something that was taken away from me through no fault of my own,” Heldorfer said. He also said contractors could not bring replacement trailers onto the lot while ground conditions remained too wet or soft.

Staff from the Department of Land Use and Growth Management told the board the property sits in the critical‑area buffer in the RPD and that current county rules allow one dwelling unit per five acres in that zone. County staff cited Section 32.1 of the St. Mary’s County comprehensive zoning ordinance (density limits), Section 41.2 (critical area regulations), and Chapter 52 (nonconforming uses/structures). Staff noted Chapter 52 requires that a nonconforming use or structure that has ceased to exist for more than one year cannot be reestablished, and that Section 52.5 requires replacement or restoration within one year following destruction by fire or calamity.

Planning staff gave specific measurements for impervious surface on the parcel: existing impervious surface was listed as 14,934.5 square feet; the 15% allowance for the lot size would be 8,421 square feet. Staff said the existing coverage therefore represented about 26.6% of the lot and that the applicant’s proposed work would push the parcel to about 27.8% impervious surface. Staff concluded the property already exceeded current limits and that adding a third dwelling would increase the nonconformity.

County Director of Land Use and Growth Management Dennis Canavan told the board the county had earlier allowed a time‑limited, expedited replacement process for properties damaged by storms, but that the extension provided at that time was for two years. Canavan said the county obtained state approval for that time‑limited procedure and that it applied only for a set period because related approvals from state and federal agencies were required for some repairs.

Board members discussed whether the applicant had taken steps during the two‑year window and whether an applicant can replace a unit on existing impervious surface without adding new impervious area. Staff explained that while placing a structure on existing impervious footprint could address the impervious‑surface issue, the nonconforming density of three dwelling units on 1.5 acres is a separate legal limit under the RPD and cannot be resolved by impervious‑surface placement alone.

After discussion, a board member moved to deny the variance to allow three dwelling units on the 1.5‑acre RPD parcel and to deny the variance to restore the grandfathered impervious surface; the motions were seconded and the board voted unanimously to deny both requests. The board directed staff to prepare an order reflecting the decision; once signed, there is a 30‑day period in which any aggrieved party may appeal the order to the circuit court.

The board indicated the order denying the variances would be prepared by staff and mailed to the applicant once signed. The board also told Heldorfer staff would prepare an order describing the findings and the applicant’s appeal rights.

Heldorfer: “I am asking permission to replace that trailer that had existed on that lot since the 1960s,” and the board’s action leaves him without that relief.

Ending: The board closed public testimony on the matter after hearing from Heldorfer and county staff and announced it would prepare a written order denying both variance requests; the applicant was told the order will be mailed and that an appeal to the circuit court is possible within the statutory period.