The St. Mary's County Board of Appeals on Oct. 23 approved a variance allowing the Wicomico Valley Foundation of Southern Maryland Inc. to disturb the 100-foot critical-area buffer to install an approximately 1,100‑linear‑foot stone revetment above mean high water at 22800 Lower Brambly Lane in Chaptico.

The variance, VAAP-25-1761, was approved after staff described the project and foundation representatives and the contractor outlined erosion on the site and why they consider a revetment necessary. The board voted to approve the request; the board's order will be prepared by staff and signed within 60 days, after which a 30‑day period for appeals to circuit court begins.

The board approved the variance because, in its view, the application met the standards in section 24.4 of the St. Mary's County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, staff said. The permit sequence described at the hearing included: county zoning/site-plan approval (granted), critical-area variance approval from the board (requested and acted on Oct. 23), and pending soil‑conservation and stormwater approvals before issuance of a building permit. Staff said mitigation for the buffer disturbance will be required at a 3:1 ratio and that a buffer management plan must be approved by Land Use and Growth Management prior to permit issuance.

Project presentation and applicant case

County staff opened the hearing and said the applicant seeks a variance from the county zoning ordinance to disturb the 100‑foot critical‑area buffer to place stone revetment above mean high water. The property totals roughly 181.15 acres and borders tidal water along the Wicomico River, staff said.

Danny Bell, project manager for Caulfield & Peterson Marine Construction, and Steve Peterson, project engineer for the contractor, described the proposed work and the permitting history. Peterson said the applicant initially applied more than three years ago and that the state has been pushing for living shorelines, but that the site conditions — a 10–14‑foot bank with long fetch and frequent wave action — make a living shoreline ill‑suited. "The living shoreline would consist of a stone sill running parallel to the shoreline out about 25, 30 feet... and behind, between the stone sill and the land, you would fill sand in there and then plant cordgrass plants," Peterson said. He added that the sill would be ‘‘constantly inundated by waves’’ at the site and that, in his view, a revetment is the effective method to stop the erosion observed there.

Robert Stahl, president of the Wicomico Valley Foundation, said the foundation owns multiple waterfront farms in the valley; he described decades of observed erosion and said the group seeks to protect preserved agricultural land. "We want to do the Rock Seawall because it's the right thing to do," Stahl said, adding the foundation has budgeted for the work and prefers a revetment to ongoing loss of farmable acres.

Evidence and mitigation

Applicants showed aerial photos and site plans at the public hearing. Staff said a portion of the previously permitted 130‑foot revetment in front of a house was already built under Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) authorization; the current variance seeks authorization to place stone behind the mean high water line where county critical‑area rules apply. Staff noted soil‑conservation and stormwater approvals remain pending.

The applicant and contractor described progressive loss of shoreline along the property and provided before‑and‑after photos. The applicant said that, as erosion advanced, parts of the shoreline moved landward so some later work falls under county critical‑area jurisdiction rather than MDE's in‑water permits. Staff and the applicant said the mitigation ratio is 3:1 and that a buffer management plan will be required before a building permit is issued.

Board discussion and outcome

Board members asked technical and procedural questions about the extent of erosion, earlier MDE permits, and the status of soil‑conservation review. After public testimony (one nearby resident spoke in support based on decades of observation), the board moved to approve the variance from section 71.80.3 to disturb the 100‑foot critical‑area buffer for an approximately 1,100‑foot stone revetment above mean high water. The motion was made by Board Member John Brown and seconded (second not specified in the record). The board recorded affirmative votes and directed staff to prepare the written order.

The board noted that staff will prepare an order reflecting the decision; once signed there is a 30‑day appeal window for aggrieved parties to seek review in circuit court.

Next steps

The applicant must finalize remaining technical approvals (soil conservation, stormwater) and submit a buffer management plan for county approval before building permits will be issued. The board's order will specify the variance and mitigation requirements; staff will circulate the signed order to the applicant and interested parties when available.