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

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, told the board the application met both standards and stressed that "if this variance is granted, it will not change or in any way alter the concept site plan that this board approved." Civil engineer David Ellington and others testified that required roadway improvements, right-of-way dedications, 65-foot environmental buffers, steep grade changes (about 20–30 feet across roughly 500 feet of site), and needed stormwater facilities confine development to a narrow central band that contains most specimen trees.

On the second standard, engineering witnesses described planned stormwater controls: bioretention and other environmental site design practices sized to meet Maryland and county standards (water-quality treatment tied to a one-year storm of roughly 2.6 inches and minimum treatment requirements not less than one inch). They testified those facilities are intended to return runoff from the developed site to rates and quality similar to a wooded condition, and that the proposed design meets state and local stormwater rules.

What proponents said

Applicants and their consultants told the board the property has been through multiple plan iterations since 2015 and that staff and applicants previously believed an administrative variance had been granted; the variance, they said, was not formally approved because there had been no public hearing. Chris Longmore said the present variance would not alter conditions already imposed on the concept plan and that the applicants propose a mix of mitigation: on-site retention, on-site reforestation and a fee-in-lieu for off-site mitigation. Engineer testimony listed anticipated plantings of roughly 135 trees in perimeter landscape buffers and about 143 trees within the on-site reforestation area, for more than 278 new trees overall, plus payment of a fee-in-lieu for additional forest conservation.

Anna Ali, a certified arborist called by the applicant, testified about tree health: where trees are within the proposed building or road footprint, heavy cut or fill and grade changes would make preservation impracticable. She also said invasive vines and other existing conditions had affected some trees’ health and that "if the tree has to be removed, there's kind of not a point to trimming the roots." The applicant agreed to a condition, requested by board members, requiring a plan to remove invasive species and improve the preserved forest stand so that the retained area will be actively conserved.

What opponents said

Neighbors and nearby landowners described large, mature oaks and other hardwoods around Old 3 Notch Road and Sotterley Road and urged preservation. Steven Hoopengardner, who farms land adjacent to the site, told the board he was "opposed to the removal of any of the trees in good or fair condition" and warned newly planted saplings cannot replace century-old trees within living memory. Multiple residents raised concerns about screening, wildlife habitat, air quality and whether state natural resources reviewers (DNR) had been involved; staff told the board that DNR is part of the TEC review process for major site plans and that technical review had been performed during project review.

Board action and conditions

The board’s motion approved the applicants’ request to remove 38 specimen trees (trees with diameters of 30 inches or more measured at 4.5 feet above the ground) and attached one explicit condition: the remaining forest stand identified in the approved concept plan must be brought to "good preservation condition" and cleared of invasive species as part of the project’s conservation measures. Staff will prepare the written order reflecting the board’s decision; the signed order will be mailed to the applicant and begins the statutory appeal window.

Practical details and next steps

The record shows the administrative variance application process began in 2015 and that the concept site plan for part of the parcel received approvals in 2016. The applicants told the board they will include the invasive-species removal and retained-stand preservation language in their site plans; staff said they would circulate and coordinate final wording before the order is signed. The board noted that approval of this variance does not change any other conditions of the previously approved concept site plan.

The board did not announce a roll-call vote or specific tally in the hearing transcript; the chair declared the motion approved and directed staff to prepare the order. The order will specify the condition and begin the 30-day appeal period when signed.

Ending

The applicant will submit the preservation and invasive-species plan for staff review and incorporation into the final site plans; staff will prepare the written order for the board’s signature within 30 days. The record and the board’s order will govern how the retained forest area is protected and how the applicant meets forest conservation requirements going forward.