Board of Appeals continues Bridal Wave Auto Spa appeal after extended testimony on site design, buffers and traffic

The St. Mary's County Board of Appeals on Jan. 9, 2025 continued until Feb. 27, 2025 an appeal of a planning commission denial and related variances for Bridal Wave Auto Spa (ZAAP 23-0309), a proposed car wash and vacuum facility on 3 Notch Road in California, Maryland.

The applicant, represented by attorney Chris Longmore, asked the board to overturn a Planning Commission denial on Oct. 7, 2024 and grant concept site plan approval and multiple variances tied to the design. The development under review includes a 3,615-square-foot tunnel car wash, a 367-square-foot accessory building, and 15 vacuum stations on roughly 4.44 acres, according to the applicant's presentation and the staff report. Stacy Clements, planner III in the Department of Land Use and Growth Management, summarized the staff findings and notice procedures at the start of the hearing: “Tonight's public hearing is zoning appeal 23-0309, the Bridal Wave Auto Spa,” she said.

Why it matters: The application seeks exceptions to landscaping and buffer rules that are intended to separate commercial and residential uses and to manage stormwater and site impacts. Board members said they needed more information about sound, equipment specifications, stormwater and some operational details before deciding on the variances and the de novo appeal.

What was requested and why: The applicant asked for several variances from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO): a reduction of a type B buffer along the northwestern boundary from 32.5 feet (half-B buffer) to 10 feet with a fence; a reduction in required overall landscaping from 20% to about 10.3%; reduction of required parking-area landscaping from 10% to 6.5%; and elimination of an extra 1,600 square feet of landscaping tied to eight additional parking spaces. The applicant and engineer said the design was intended to preserve existing forested areas and a non-tidal wetland on the parcel, limit disturbance and avoid extending grading into steep slopes and wetland buffers. Longmore told the board that staff’s written report “shows that the proposed development appears to meet the requirements set forth in the applicable sections of the comprehensive zoning ordinance,” but that variances would be needed to accommodate the landscaping and buffer requests.

Questions from the board and public: Board members pressed the applicant on several operational and safety issues the record lacked at the concept stage, including: - Noise and sound attenuation for vacuum units and internal car-wash motors (several members recommended an acoustic study and engagement with the adjacent dental office). - Vehicle circulation and public-safety concerns at the two right-in/right-out entrances onto Route 4 and Route 235, including potential cut-through behavior and merge conflicts during peak hours; traffic engineer Michael Lenhart (PE, PTOE) presented his traffic study but the board asked for more detail tied to the final site configuration. - Stormwater management near an identified non-tidal wetland and whether grading or utility work (Washington Gas infrastructure was noted) could affect cover or utility clearances; the applicant said MDE approval would be required for wetland buffer impacts and that micro-bioretention facilities are proposed for parking-lot runoff treatment. - Operational specifics not provided at concept: throughput rates for the tunnel, vacuum equipment specifications and decibel levels, internal building plumbing and whether onsite water reuse would be employed. The applicant’s civil engineer, Matt Perez, and traffic consultant Michael Lenhart said these are typically refined at the final-site-plan or building-permit stage; the board asked the applicant to supply more of those details if the hearing was to move forward.

Staff and agency comments: Clements reviewed applicable CZO sections used to evaluate the concept plan (section 51.3, schedule 32.1, chapter 63, etc.) and noted agency reviews: St. Mary’s County Public Schools, Department of Economic Development, Department of Environmental Health, Soil Conservation District, Maryland State Highway, St. Mary’s County Metropolitan Commission (METCOM), Washington Gas, SMECO, the sheriff’s office, Department of Recreation and Parks, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) and the fire board provided comments or had no objection at the concept stage; METCOM and Washington Gas had technical items to resolve in final engineering.

Outcome and next steps: After extended questioning and public comments, the applicant requested a continuance to compile additional operational, acoustical and utility information. The board voted to continue the hearing to Feb. 27, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. in the Commissioners meeting room; the motion passed with all members present voting in favor. The board directed the applicant to provide the additional documentation and said public comment would be accepted after the presentation is updated and re-noticed for the continued hearing.

What the continuance does not decide: The continuance does not change the Planning Commission’s earlier denial; the Board of Appeals will hear the appeal de novo on the continued date and receive the new evidence. If the board approves a concept plan, multiple final engineering approvals (MDE for wetlands, METCOM, SHA/DPW for access) and a final site plan review would still be required before building permits are issued.

Votes at a glance: The board’s only formal action on the case on Jan. 9 was to continue the hearing to Feb. 27, 2025 (motion passed unanimously).