St. Mary's County Board of Appeals unanimously approves variance for Richard property addition and deck

The St. Mary's County Board of Appeals on Sept. 11 unanimously approved a variance (VAAP-250728) allowing an addition and deck on the Richard property at 40383 Old Breton Beach Road to be closer to the water than the principal structure on an adjacent parcel.

The variance, requested by the Richard Living Trust and presented by applicant representative Sean Sullivan and owner Joseph Richard, was granted to allow a bedroom/bathroom addition and an attached deck on a property the applicant said is composed of three lots (45, 46 and 47) and totals about 22,200 square feet. Sullivan said the project is intended to improve accessibility for the owners: "the Richards just wanna have a larger, you know, just a little bit larger, space," and that the addition was designed to avoid a septic field.

Board staff, represented in the hearing by Stacy Clements of the county Land Use and Growth Management (LUGM) office, said the project is in the Critical Area limited development overlay, is exempt from stormwater and soil conservation review because it proposes less than 5,000 square feet of soil disturbance, and that health department approval is still pending. Clements noted that LUGM had reviewed the plan for zoning and Comprehensive Plan requirements and that the Critical Area Commission submitted comments attached to the board documents but did not take a firm position in that letter.

Why it matters: the St. Mary's County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO) generally bars new residential development in the Critical Area from being closer to the water than principal structures on adjacent lots; a variance is required where that rule would otherwise block modest additions. The board's approval allows the owners to proceed toward a building permit, subject to final permit-level checks and mitigation requirements.

Most of the board's hearing focused on how much of the proposed work actually encroaches closer to the water than the adjacent principal structure, and on how mitigation plantings should be calculated. LUGM staff said the reviewer calculated a 3:1 mitigation ratio based on the portion of the proposed development included in the variance; staff acknowledged there was confusion about whether the Critical Area buffer rule (which typically requires 2:1 mitigation for new development) and the variance provision's 3:1 multiplier should be additive or applied differently.

Sullivan and Richard supplied site plans and photographs at the hearing; Sullivan said the proposed deck is about 144 square feet (presented as an 18-by-8 deck in the materials) and that roughly 2.6 feet of the deck extends closer to the water than the adjacent principal structure. He also told the board the addition overall is about 20 feet seaward of the neighbor's principal structure when measured from the face of the buildings. Staff and the applicant agreed to recalculate the mitigation area to reflect only the portion of new development subject to the variance, and Clements said staff would work with the applicant to finalize a planting plan before a permit is issued: "we will definitely get to the bottom of it with the applicant and make sure we're really clear on that."

Board members asked whether proposed compensatory plantings would be placed on the property or off-site and whether they might conflict with a septic drain field; staff said the proposed plantings were shown on site and that LUGM typically works with applicants to adjust species, locations or, when necessary, a fee-in-lieu. The applicant confirmed the planting locations had been revised in an updated buffer management plan submitted to staff; the board noted the updated planting plan was provided late and not fully uploaded to the board packet but accepted it into the record during the hearing.

The board made a formal motion that the standards for granting the variance and the objectives of section 24.4 of the St. Mary's County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance had been met and moved to approve the variance from CZO section 41.74(a)(5) to allow residential development closer to the water than the principal structure on an adjacent parcel for the proposed addition and deck. The motion passed 5-0.

Staff will prepare an order reflecting the decision and sign it within 60 days; a 30-day appeal period follows the date the order is signed, during which an aggrieved party may appeal to circuit court. Permit issuance will require final health department approval and a completed planting agreement consistent with the board order and county regulations.

The board's vote followed public questions and staff review; no public commenters testified against the project at the hearing.