Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Critical Area topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves Dennis Point Marina buffer variance over critical area commission objection, 4–1
Summary
The Board of Appeals voted 4–1 to allow Dennis Point Marina to replace an existing trailer with a slightly larger storage/rental building within the 100‑foot critical area buffer, finding the variance standards met despite opposition from the Critical Area Commission and six letters (five supporting) in the record.
The St. Mary’s County Board of Appeals voted 4–1 on March 12 to grant a variance to Dennis Point Holdings LLC allowing replacement of an existing trailer with a 1,152‑square‑foot storage and rental building for kayaks, paddle boards, rowboats and pedal boats within the 100‑foot critical area buffer.
Staff framed VAP25‑0350 as a request under Section 71.8.3.B1 to impact the critical area buffer; the Critical Area Commission opposed the application, stating the proposed facility does not meet the county’s water‑dependent definition and asserting a practical alternative exists that would avoid buffer impacts. Agencies that cleared the project included the Department of Economic Development, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the Fire Board and the Maryland Department of the Environment; other agencies returned comments.
Applicant counsel argued the replacement structure is accessory to an existing commercial marina, is sited in essentially the same footprint as the prior trailer and supports water‑oriented recreation. Counsel noted the new building adds roughly 56 square feet to the existing 1,096‑square‑foot footprint, would not be closer to the water than the existing structure, and that modern construction and stormwater measures can be environmentally preferable to leaving deteriorated trailers in place. Counsel also pointed to county zoning language that lists commercial recreation and accessory marina services as permitted uses in commercial marine zones.
Board members focused their questions on whether the use is water‑dependent, examples of similar facilities in other county locations, the possibility of moving some coverage outside the buffer to reduce mitigation, and the absence of a replacement‑in‑kind provision in the county ordinance. Staff confirmed the buffer mapping is approximate on GIS and that a survey measuring mean high water would be required before permit issuance. The record included six letters, five from adjacent owners supporting the project; no speakers testified in opposition at the hearing.
After deliberation the board approved the variance by a 4–1 vote. The chair instructed staff to prepare a written order within 60 days; the order’s signature triggers a 30‑day period during which an aggrieved party may seek judicial review in circuit court.
