Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves variances to allow 24 townhomes and one office building on Main Street despite wetland buffer impacts
Summary
The Calvert County Board of Appeals granted two variances allowing development at 305 and 445 Main Street in Prince Frederick—24 townhomes and one commercial office—after applicants said sewer connections and lot topography made buffer impacts unavoidable and mitigation would be required.
The Calvert County Board of Appeals on Jan. 20 granted two variances that clear a major legal hurdle for a proposed development at 305 and 445 Main Street in Prince Frederick.
The application from Main Street Development Partnership sought relief from wetland and stream‑buffer rules to construct 24 townhomes and one commercial office building on a narrow, sloped lot. Applicant representatives told the board the existing public sewer alignment runs through the rear of the parcel and that avoiding the buffers would force an on‑site pump station with a larger footprint and higher long‑term operating risk for the county.
"This is the type of desirable, residential mix that the county should encourage," attorney David Weigel said, arguing the site supports the county comprehensive plan’s goal for walkable town centers. Engineer Anthony Alexon and project manager Jeffrey Martis described site‑level measures they said would minimize and mitigate impacts.
Martis told the board the disturbance for stormwater and equipment related to buffer impacts totals in the low thousands of square feet: he reported roughly 3,995 sq ft tied to buffer stormwater work and additional disturbances of about 1,525 sq ft for stream‑related amenities and roughly 2,975 sq ft for stormwater functions, with other amenity impacts also quantified. Environmental planner Colleen Brumman said standard mitigation would apply: planting at a 2:1 ratio and a bonded planting/establishment requirement typically enforced on detailed site plans.
Board members pressed applicants on alternatives, including locating sewer connections to Main Street and whether a pump station could avoid buffer work. The applicants responded that a pump station would increase the project footprint and likely increase long‑term county operating exposure; they said site design pushed parking toward the street and placed dwelling units away from the buffers to minimize impacts.
After discussing the five variance criteria, the board found practical difficulties due to lot width and topography and that granting the variances—subject to mitigation and standard site‑plan review—would not injure the public interest or contravene the comprehensive plan. The board voted to grant the two variances; the chair announced the variances were approved.
