Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

St. Mary's County panel approves variance to remove 38 specimen trees at Hollywood Commercial Center

2214622 · February 3, 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 Zoning Board of Appeals voted March 23 to grant a variance allowing the removal of 38 specimen trees from the Hollywood Commercial Center property, subject to a condition that the remaining forest stand be restored and invasive species removed.

The St. Mary's County Zoning Board of Appeals voted March 23 to grant a variance allowing the removal of 38 specimen trees from the Hollywood Commercial Center property, with a condition that the developer bring the remaining forest stand to good condition and remove invasive species.

The variance application (VAAP 15-183-006), brought by Dean Family Partnership and Hollywood Partners 3 Notch LLC, asked for relief from the county’s forest conservation priority retention-area requirements (section 75.8.2.b(6) of the St. Mary’s County comprehensive zoning ordinance). The board’s co-chair John Brown moved to approve the request; Wayne Badinsky seconded. The board directed staff to prepare an order reflecting the decision; the order will be signed within 30 days and is subject to the normal appeals period.

The case mattered to residents and officials because the site lies within the Hollywood town center area and contains large, mature hardwoods that neighbors said provide visual screening, noise buffering and environmental benefits. Several neighbors urged the board to preserve the trees, while the applicants and their consultants said the site’s configuration, topography and other required improvements left little developable area and made preservation of the listed specimen trees infeasible.

Why the board said it acted

County code limits a board’s review of this kind of variance to two findings: (1) that special features of the site or other circumstances make strict implementation an unwarranted hardship, and (2) that granting the variance will not adversely affect water quality. The applicants’ attorney, Chris Longmore,…

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to keep reading

Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.

  • Unlimited articles
  • AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
  • Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
  • Follow topics and more locations
  • 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
30-day money-back on paid plans