Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Critical Area topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues steep-slope, critical-area variance for Lusby lot after runoff concerns
Summary
A request to reduce the 10-foot steep-slope setback to 0 and disturb steep slopes at 1116 El Paso Circle was continued for up to six months so the applicant can work with affected neighbors on additional mitigation for runoff and stormwater effects.
Get email alerts on the Critical Area topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Calvert County Board of Appeals continued a critical-area and steep-slope variance request for a Lusby lot after board members raised serious concerns about runoff and impacts to a downhill neighbor.
Jeffrey Toole of COA Barrett LLC, representing property owners Roger and Christie Reed, described a constrained lot of roughly 0.25 acre and a compact house footprint (26 by 36 feet; about 2,100 square feet of living space when accounting for a half story and partial basement). He told the board he worked with the health department to configure septic and replacement drain fields so the house could be sited forward to minimize clearing and comply with required nitrogen-removal septic rules for critical-area parcels. Toole said stormwater measures meet required ESD volumes and that the design uses restrictive sediment-control devices during construction.
Board members pressed on existing stormwater damage reported at a downstream property (Lot 186, owned/managed by DAP Homes LLC), the amount of forest clearing (applicant estimated approximately 5,900 square feet of forest removed and over 6,000 square feet of disturbance), and whether the proposed mitigation would prevent worsening of neighbor impacts. One board member said the downhill homeowner "is experiencing quite a lot of runoff damage from this lot" in the record; counsel noted citizens can appeal final board orders to the circuit court but that board decisions are generally subject to governmental immunities. A motion to continue the case so the applicant could meet with neighbors and explore design changes was amended to specify up to six months and passed.
