Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues hot-tub variance request at Lusby property after staff flags possible unpermitted coverage
Summary
Calvert County Board of Appeals continued a request from James Michael Smith for variances to install a hot tub at 297 Deer Drive after staff reported photos suggesting previously mitigated land had been paved over; the board asked staff to supply permit records, aerial imagery and a current lot-coverage calculation before a decision.
The Calvert County Board of Appeals voted to continue a variance request from James Michael Smith on Dec. 5 after staff members told the board that field photos suggest a previously mitigated area on the property at 297 Deer Drive may have been paved over.
The applicant, James Michael Smith, of Lusby, sought critical area variances to disturb a buffer and steep slopes, to exceed permissible lot coverage, and to reduce a buffer setback to install a concrete hot tub. County staff confirmed public notice was posted and marked exhibits, then told the board that field photos show paving and a stone walkway that are not reflected on the site plan.
"A portion of that mitigated area appears to have been paved over," a county planning and zoning official told the board. Staff asked the board to review prior permits and aerial imagery to confirm whether the paved area was part of prior mitigation that should have been removed and to calculate current lot coverage.
Smith said he had met with county staff during the permit process and believed the project had passed final inspection. "I'm shocked that now I'm being told that I have some violation or potential violation on the property," Smith said, arguing he relied on prior approvals while preparing his appeal.
Board members and staff disagreed about how complete the record was and whether the board could rule without the county’s historical permit documentation. Staff said the stone walkway and repaved area potentially increase the property’s lot coverage beyond what was permitted. During the hearing members cited staff figures showing the property’s lot development could rise from 31.8% to 32.5%, exceeding a grandfathered 31.25% in one calculation.
To resolve the discrepancy the board moved to continue the case and requested that staff prepare: a current lot-coverage calculation, site plans for recent building on the lot, and recent aerial imagery to determine the extent of paved-over mitigation. The motion to continue passed by voice vote.
The board noted that, if the only issue is the paved area, remediation could be made a condition of approval, but members said they needed the county records in hand before accepting testimony as the basis for a final finding. The applicant was told he may withdraw the application if he prefers not to return; staff advised that advertising a continued hearing could involve additional fees.
The board will revisit the case when the requested documentation is added to the official record; a decision must be rendered within 45 days after the case is closed and an order issued within 45 days of that decision.
Meeting excerpts: staff confirmation of public notice and marked exhibits, staff description of field photos suggesting repaving, applicant statement that prior permits closed and that he relied on staff guidance, and the board’s motion to continue pending permit review.
