Board continues pier variance after neighbor complaints; applicant told to seek contractor remedy

The St. Mary’s County Board of Appeals on June 11 continued a shoreline variance application to Aug. 13 to allow the property owner and neighbors to try to resolve proximity and construction‑timing disputes over a pier that has already been built.

Staff planner Stacy Clements described VAAP 26‑0180, a request to reduce lateral line setbacks to permit a proposed 6‑foot‑wide, 250‑foot pier with a 10-by‑20 l‑head and boat lift for property at 24295 North Patuxent Beach Road in California, Md. Clements said MDE had issued a state permit, but county lateral lines and a platted “paper road” created multiple lateral setbacks and unclear ownership of one offset line, complicating the necessary lateral‑line agreements.

Applicant Leah Anthony told the board she obtained an MDE permit and hired a pier contractor (Caulfield & Peterson). She said the contractor installed pilings and finished much of the work before all county paperwork was recorded; she also said she paid for the state permit and later learned she needed lateral‑line agreements from neighboring owners to finish county recording.

Neighbor Kurt Dodges, who lives immediately north of the pier, presented photos and said the built pier shifted left and that two pilings are close to his pier, reducing navigable space. He asked the applicant and contractor to remove the last two pilings or shorten the end of the L‑shaped pier to restore roughly an 8–10 foot opening; he said he otherwise supports a pier on the property.

County counsel and staff told the board the county’s lateral‑line rules apply to piers attached to land and that in most cases both the MDE (state) permit and county permit should be obtained before construction. Counsel advised the board it could approve with conditions but noted enforcement and enforcement timing can be complicated; staff suggested a continuance to give the parties time to bring the contractor and neighbors together or to present a modified site plan.

After discussion the board voted to continue VAAP 26‑0180 to August 13, 2026, to provide the applicant time to obtain lateral‑line signatures or propose modifications (for example removing the last two pilings) and, if possible, to return with the contractor present.

Why it matters: The case highlights tension between state and county permitting regimes and shows the board’s preference in some post‑construction matters to give parties and contractors an opportunity to remedy site conditions before the board issues a final ruling.

Next steps: The applicant will be given time to coordinate with neighbors and the contractor; the board’s continuance date is Aug. 13, 2026, when the case will be placed back on the calendar.