Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lot Coverage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues disputed Redden lot-coverage variance after questions over eaves, deck and parking calculations
Summary
The Board of Appeals continued VAAP 25-1847 (Redden property, Leonardtown) to April 9, 2026 after finding conflicting calculations about lot coverage — including whether eaves and certain decking count toward lot coverage — and after receiving a late Critical Area Commission letter that called some previously excluded decking into lot-coverage calculations.
The Saint Mary's County Board of Appeals on Feb. 12 continued consideration of a lot-coverage variance for the Redden property (VAAP 25-1847) after substantial debate over how to count eaves, decks and parking areas and after the board received a letter from the Critical Area Commission that changed the lot-coverage accounting used in prior staff reviews.
Staff reintroduced the continued case and reported the applicant's revised site plan proposes 7,632 square feet of lot coverage (including decking and overhangs), exceeding the allowable 5,445 square feet. The Critical Area Commission had filed comments opposing the variance and its letter treated decking and overhang projections as part of lot coverage, which increased the overage compared with the applicant's previous calculations.
Deputy County Attorney John Houser and staff cited the county zoning ordinance (CZO 61.7) provisions that allow certain improvements within required yards but permit only limited overhangs (eaves up to 2.5 feet) without counting toward lot coverage. The applicant's design includes a 4-foot eave projection and extensive perimeter decking; board members and staff disagreed whether those features should be excluded as "pervious decks" or counted based on the Critical Area Commission's interpretation.
Architect David Jamieson testified that the design team reduced lot coverage by roughly 65 percent from earlier proposals by replacing concrete walkways with pervious deck surfaces and narrowing drive strips; Jamieson argued eaves historically have not been counted toward lot occupancy and cited COMAR definitions in support of that interpretation. The board remained concerned that Critical Area staff and county zoning staff were not on the same page about counting eaves and decking.
Given the unresolved technical and legal questions — including whether the 4-foot eave should be counted, how decking should be classified, and whether the parking court could be reduced — the board voted to continue VAAP 25-1847 to April 9, 2026 to allow the applicant and staff to reconcile calculations and for staff to complete zoning review and any necessary coordination with Critical Area authorities.
Board members emphasized they want a single, consistent set of numbers and zoning determinations when the case returns.
