The Board of Appeals on Jan. 8 continued VAAP‑25‑1847, a variance request by Robert and Lisa Redden for a replacement house that would exceed lot‑coverage limits at 43753 Stevenson Drive in Leonardtown. The board postponed a decision after members said the Critical Area Commission’s late comments changed the project’s lot‑coverage math and raised potential conflict with state lot‑coverage definitions.

Stacy Clements, Land Use & Growth Management planner, summarized the application and told the board that the Critical Area Commission’s comments arrived shortly before the hearing. Surveyor Steve Vaughn explained the lot’s constraints: a failing septic system requiring a front‑yard replacement and a long driveway that increases lot coverage. Vaughn said staff and the applicant proposed mitigation and stormwater management, but the CAC considers pervious gravel and geomat as lot coverage under current Maryland Natural Resources law — a distinction that produced a difference of more than 1,000 square feet between staff and CAC figures.

Owner Robert Redden told the board the existing home was gutted and that a single‑story replacement (with a 4‑ft walkway around the house) is needed for accessibility; he emphasized medical and mobility concerns and said reusing the existing structure was not feasible. Board members questioned whether the applicant’s requested parking and walkway area could be reduced, and whether the hardship claimed was self‑created. Counsel and board members encouraged the applicant to reduce coverage and/or provide additional technical documentation.

Surveyor Vaughn requested a continuance to refine the design and to allow more time for the CAC to review revisions. The board granted a continuance to its Feb. 12, 2026 meeting so the applicant can “sharpen the pencil” and provide further information. The applicant said he would revise the plan and obtain additional input from the Critical Area Commission and staff.

The continuance preserves the applicant’s ability to obtain a decision while giving the board more time to compare competing lot‑coverage calculations and to consider potential mitigation or design changes.