Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals continues Lusby homeowner's variance request after staff flags possible unpermitted lot coverage
Summary
The Calvert County Board of Appeals continued a variance request from James Michael Smith for a hot tub at 297 Deer Drive so staff can obtain prior permit records, updated lot-coverage calculations and recent aerial imagery after staff identified paved areas that may have been part of prior mitigation.
The Calvert County Board of Appeals on Dec. 5 continued a request by James Michael Smith of 297 Deer Drive for variances tied to disturbance of a critical-area buffer and exceeding permissible lot coverage. The board paused a decision after staff reported field photos and permit records suggesting previously mitigated areas had been repaved, and a stone walkway not shown on the site plan may add to lot coverage.
Board staff told the panel that public notice and exhibits were in the record, but that additional evidence from older permits and aerial imagery is not yet part of the official record and could affect the board's findings. A county planning official said photos and permit history show a portion of a driveway previously required to be removed appears to have been repaved and that a stone path may be a source of unpermitted coverage. The staff recommendation prompted board members to weigh whether to hear testimony immediately or to defer the case to allow staff to compile the missing documents.
The applicant, James Michael Smith, who was sworn for testimony, said he had met with county staff during the permitting process and had received final inspections in the past. He asked the board to hear the case so he would not have to repeat his testimony at a later date. The applicant also offered that removing an on-site shed could reduce coverage and that the requested structure would add roughly 120 square feet (applicant provided differing figures during the hearing). Smith said he was surprised to learn of the newly raised coverage concerns and added, “I feel like I'm being sabotaged here.”
Board members expressed concern about making a ruling without the permit history and aerial imagery, noting the Maryland Critical Area Commission had commented on the matter and had not visited the site. One member suggested that a clearer record would reduce the risk of future legal challenges. The board ultimately moved to continue the case and asked staff to obtain a current calculation of lot coverage, site plans for recent building on the lot, and the most recent aerial imagery so the total lot coverage could be accurately determined.
The motion to continue was made, seconded and carried. The board advised the applicant that if the hearing is rescheduled, additional advertising fees could apply. Staff reminded the applicant that the board will issue a written order within 45 days after it renders a decision on the case.
