St. Mary’s County Board of Appeals approves variance to allow handicap-access work at two-house property in critical-area buffer

The St. Mary’s County Board of Appeals on March 17 approved variances allowing work within the critical-area buffer and an increase in lot coverage at a two-house parcel on Morgan Brothers Road in Mechanicsville, finding the requests met the county’s variance standards. The board attached a condition that the small roof extension on a waterside porch be removed.

The variances (VAAP 20-1047 and VAAP 20-1048) allow disturbance of the 100-foot critical-area buffer for porches and handicap ramps and an exception to section 41.5.3.i of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to exceed the county’s 15% overall lot-coverage limit for the property, which the county packet shows as 1.69 acres.

Why it matters: The property owners said they relied on a 2015 site plan and related permit that miscalculated existing lot coverage; the mistake became evident only when the new owners sought permits to make accessibility improvements for an elderly, wheelchair-bound family member. The board’s approval balances the owners’ stated need to provide an accessible living space with mitigation and a narrow condition intended to limit visual/impervious impacts.

What the board heard: Applicant Terry Passante Close testified the owners relied on an earlier site plan showing a post‑improvement lot coverage of about 13.2%, and that they purchased the house based on that figure. The owners said the earlier plan omitted gravel parking when calculating coverage; land-survey firm LSR later acknowledged the 2015 plan mistakenly omitted gravel areas from the coverage calculation. LSR representative Steve Vaughn told the board the accessory-structure addition is 355 square feet and that the proposed changes are a bedroom and bathroom intended to make the guest house usable for a wheelchair user.

County staff described the history of permits and noted a prior permit (Permit 14‑1859) that authorized replacement of the primary house and construction of an in-ground pool; when construction finished, county records showed the parcel exceeded the 15% limit (staff listed existing lot coverage at 17.9%). The packet shows the RCA (Resource Conservation Area) allowable coverage for this parcel as 10,966 square feet (15%). Mitigation for the new work was calculated at 3,971 square feet to account for permanent and temporary disturbance and buffer establishment.

Board discussion and condition: Members asked whether the applicants caused the original overage; county attorney John Hauser explained staff dismissed citations against the current owners because they did not create the violation. Deputy County Attorney Neil Murphy confirmed the coverage discrepancy was discovered during this application after the prior owners had moved out. Board members pressed about alternatives the applicants had considered (removing a driveway that the neighbors say they have used historically) and whether smaller alternatives could provide the needed accessibility. Builder Dean Wolf and surveyor Steve Vaughn explained the ramp and porch layout is intended to provide the necessary clearances and a roll-in shower in the addition.

Vote and next steps: After board members debated conditions, a motion to approve the variances passed. The board attached a condition removing the small roof/awning over the secondary waterside porch (about 73 square feet as discussed) to reduce additional impervious coverage. Staff will prepare and mail a signed order; the transcript records the board’s determination and the secretary’s description of the post‑order appeal timeline.

Public comment and other context: There were no public callers for this case when the board opened public testimony. The board discussed alternatives proffered by the applicants (attempts to purchase adjacent land and willingness to plant buffer vegetation) and emphasized that reasonable accommodation for disabilities is a recognized component of the county and state critical-area rules.

What was not decided: The board’s action does not relocate rights or alter state law; it approves a variance under the county ordinance with the stated condition. Any enforcement history against prior owners was outside the record for this decision, and the board did not order removal of previously permitted improvements beyond the one roof condition.

Ending: Staff will prepare a written order reflecting the board’s action; that order will be signed and mailed to the applicants and contains the appeal window and filing instructions.