Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lot Coverage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies after‑the‑fact hot‑tub and concrete pad variance in Lexington Park 4–1
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied an after‑the‑fact variance (VAAP 23‑2702) for additional lot coverage tied to a hot tub and expanded concrete pad at 47157 South Snow Hill Manor Road; board members cited deviation from the approved plan and inconsistent inspections; the vote was 4–1.
The St. Mary’s County Board of Appeals on June 11 denied an after‑the‑fact variance request for additional lot coverage related to a hot tub and expanded concrete pad at a Lexington Park property.
Staff presented VAAP 23‑2702 for the Atkinson/Lehman property at 47157 South Snow Hill Manor Road, which sought an additional 543 square feet of lot coverage. Staff said the lot’s allowable coverage is 9,122 square feet and that a prior 2024 variance had increased permitted coverage to 10,354 square feet; the as‑built coverage before the hearing was described as roughly 10,610 square feet under the applicant’s revised submission. For the additional coverage, staff said the applicant must provide 3,801 square feet of mitigation plantings (a combined requirement for the underlying violation and the variance mitigation) and that violation mitigation was bonded when plantings could not be completed before the hearing.
Surveyor Steve Vaughn reviewed aerials and site plans; homeowner Scott Atkinson said the pool and other work were completed summer 2025, that required plantings were completed in fall 2025, and that a bond was posted for the remaining mitigation when plantings could not be scheduled before the hearing.
Board members sharply questioned why the constructed pool and concrete differed from the 2024 approved plan, and whether inspections and contractor processes failed to catch deviations. Several board members said they were uncomfortable approving what they characterized as post‑approval additions to the project and noted a Critical Area Commission notice of violation that flagged excess impervious surface and incomplete mitigation. One member said the case was an example where the board’s usual leniency toward property owners should not apply because the permit and the as‑built work diverged.
A motion to deny the after‑the‑fact variance was moved and seconded; the board voted 4–1 to deny VAAP 23‑2702. Staff will prepare a written order reflecting the board’s decision, to be signed within 60 days; a 30‑day appeal period follows signature.
Why it matters: The decision underscores enforcement of lot‑coverage and critical‑area mitigation requirements and shows the board enforcing compliance where as‑built work differs materially from approved plans.
Next steps: The denial will be memorialized in an order prepared by staff; the applicant may appeal within 30 days of the order’s signing.
