Calvert BOA finds zoning officer erred and temporarily tolls Lusby Villas approval during litigation

The Calvert County Board of Appeals voted to find an error in the county zoning officer’s handling of a tolling request and administratively tolled the Lusby Villas detailed site‑development plan approval until litigation over the subdivision is complete. The decision follows a contested hearing in which the applicant warned that the three‑year approval window could expire while appellate review is pending.

The developer’s attorney, Steven Oberg, told the board the project’s approvals are at risk because an appeal of the subdivision approval is pending in the Maryland appellate courts and could continue past the September 2027 expiration of the site‑development approval. “While we are waiting for that decision to come down…my client’s three‑year clock on the site development plans are ticking,” Oberg said in his opening statement. Owner Johnny Gott told the board he has invested millions of dollars and that the uncertainty made proceeding untenable.

County staff and counsel told the board the zoning ordinance does not contain an administrative tolling provision. Rachel O’Shea, deputy director of zoning, explained in her written response and again in the hearing that the department “cannot administratively confirm that the approval is tolled” because the ordinance does not authorize such a toll. Jason Brinkley, director of planning and zoning, and county counsel advised the board that the established remedy for extending approval periods while litigation is pending is judicial tolling, which courts grant on a case‑by‑case basis.

Despite that advice, a majority of the Board of Appeals concluded that the zoning officer’s failure to issue a definitive administrative determination on the requested toll constituted an omission or error for the purposes of the appeals process. The board invoked its authority under BOA procedure to issue a new order and voted to toll the Lusby Villas detailed site‑development plan approval until the related litigation is finalized. Board members framed the action as a way to preserve the applicant’s procedural rights while litigation proceeds.

The board’s decision drew sharp public comment at the hearing. Opponents urged caution and raised concerns about traffic, school capacity and density in Lusby; Myra Gowins of Calvert Citizens United and other residents told the board they oppose the development. Oberg and Gott said they had followed the administrative process, exhausted remedies, and sought the BOA determination only because the zoning officer declined to rule.

The board’s order directs that the existing site‑development approval remain tolled during the pendency of the litigation; it does not decide the merits of the underlying subdivision appeal. County staff said the department will continue to treat the plan as tolled under the BOA order while counsel and the courts address the pending appeals.

What’s next: The BOA’s administrative toll preserves the developer’s approval while the court case proceeds. The litigation’s duration will determine how long the toll remains in effect; the board’s order does not alter any substantive approvals and does not substitute for judicial tolling in the courts.