Calvert County Board of Appeals Public Administrative Hearing - February 3, 2026

The Calvert County Board of Appeals convened on Tuesday, February 3, 2026, at 9:00 AM in Chesapeake Hearing Room, Prince Frederick, in a hybrid format. The Board heard five cases: four variance/special exception requests and one alleged error decision. Key outcomes included approval of variances for a townhome development, a pet grooming home occupation, a single-family home on steep slopes, and a pier, plus a ruling that the zoning officer erred and the Board granted a tolling of a site plan approval during pending litigation.

Case 1: Case 25-4236 – Variances for Wetland/Stream Buffer Impacts (305 & 445 Main Street, Prince Frederick)

• Applicant: Anthony Olekson of COA Barrett, LLC on behalf of Main Street Development Partnership.
• Request: Two general variances for impacts to a wetland and stream buffer (not for stormwater management) to construct 24 townhomes and one commercial office building on a narrow, steeply sloping lot.
• Public Testimony: None.
• Discussion: The lot has limited frontage and a 40-foot elevation drop. The existing sewer connection lies within the buffer. The applicant argued the variances are the minimum necessary; stormwater management will improve downstream conditions. The Board questioned the lack of a final site plan but accepted that variances must precede planning commission review.
• Outcome: Motion to grant the variances passed 4-1 (Mr. Ireland opposed). Conditions include site plan approval from Calvert County staff and an approved mitigation plan at a 2:1 planting ratio as determined by the county environmental planner.

Case 2: Case 25-4237 – Special Exception for Home Occupation (8821 Limerick Lane, Owings)

• Applicants: Brittany & Jarrett Baumgartner.
• Request: Special Exception Class B to operate a mobile pet grooming trailer with on-site appointments. The trailer will be parked in the driveway; gray water disposed at Lusby landfill.
• Public Testimony: Two emails of support were read into the record.
• Discussion: Mr. Clark expressed concern about setting a precedent for commercial mobile units in residential areas. Staff clarified that home occupation rules govern the business, not the trailer type. The applicants noted they have no employees and only one client at a time.
• Outcome: The Board granted the special exception with an added condition that it applies only to the current property owners at the current location. Vote: unanimous.

Case 3: Case 25-4225 – Critical Area Variance & General Variance for Steep Slopes (1116 El Paso Circle, Lusby)

• Applicant: Jeff Toewell of COA Barrett, LLC for property owners Roger & Kristie Reed.
• Request: Critical area variance for disturbance of steep slopes and general variance to reduce the 10-foot setback off steep slopes to 0′ for a Cape Cod house with basement, deck, and stoop.
• Public Testimony: Four emails of opposition were noted (Charles Lumadue, James McQueen, Pawan Gupta, John Trass). John Trass attended virtually and questioned the validity of a 20-year-old perk test; staff confirmed the health department renewed it.
• Discussion: The applicant proposed an earth berm and stone outlet structure to direct runoff away from a downstream neighbor. The Board discussed the permanence of the berm and potential liability.
• Outcome: The Board granted both the general variance and the critical area variance, with conditions requiring the proposed stormwater management plan and sediment control, using best available technology at the time of construction. Votes: unanimous on each.

Case 4: Case 25-4239 – Variances for Lateral Line Setbacks (358 Gideon Lane, Solomons)

• Applicant: Jeff Toewell on behalf of Suzanne Weems.
• Request: Two variances to reduce lateral line setbacks from 25′ to 8′ (adjoining Parcel 349) and to 11′ (adjoining Conservation Open Space B) for a 6′ x 16′ pier on Back Creek.
• Public Testimony: None.
• Discussion: The lot has only 32 feet of waterfront; the 25-foot setbacks overlap. The pier will not extend into the harbor line. No opposition received.
• Outcome: Motion to grant both variances passed unanimously.

Case 5: Case 25-4238 – Decision on Alleged Error (Lusby Villas, 11770 Lusby Parkway, Lusby)

• Applicant: Stephen Oberg of Council Baradel on behalf of Lusby Town Center, LLC.
• Request: Review of the zoning officer’s interpretation (Item 4) that the detailed site development plan approval is not tolled during pending litigation over the final subdivision plan. The applicant seeks a ruling that the three-year approval clock is tolled.
• Public Testimony: Vicky Richardson (local resident) and Larry Singer (Save Lusby, Inc.) spoke in opposition, citing traffic, crime, and overdevelopment concerns.
• Discussion: The zoning officer, Rachel O’Shea, testified that the zoning ordinance does not authorize administrative tolling; therefore, she could not grant it. The county (Jason Brinkley, Director of Planning and Zoning) argued that tolling is a judicial remedy, not administrative. The applicant argued that the officer failed to make a decision and the Board has authority under Section 30-9 to issue a new order.
• Outcome: The Board first voted 3-1-1 (Mr. Ireland, Mr. Briscoe, Mr. Clark in favor; Ms. Wagner abstained; Ms. Dolwell opposed) that the zoning officer erred by not rendering a decision on the tolling request. Then, on a motion to toll the site plan approval until litigation is finalized, the Board voted 5-0 to grant the tolling. The Board issued an order tolling the expiration of the detailed development plan during the pendency of the court case.

Public Comment

• Vicky Richardson (11995 Rousby Hall Road) expressed frustration with traffic, school capacity, and crime related to the Lusby Town Center development. She said residents feel unheard and that the Board is catering to wealthy developers.
• Larry Singer (Lusby resident and Save Lusby, Inc. vice president) stated that 276 apartments would bring Section 8 tenants from Baltimore, increase crime, and strain infrastructure. He threatened to sue the Board for overriding planning staff and the zoning officer’s opinion.

Key Outcomes

• Case 25-4236: Variances granted 4-1 with conditions (site plan and mitigation plan approval).
• Case 25-4237: Special exception granted unanimously with condition applicable to current owners.
• Case 25-4225: General and critical area variances granted unanimously with stormwater management conditions.
• Case 25-4239: Lateral line setback variances granted unanimously.
• Case 25-4238: Board found zoning officer erred (3-1-1); then unanimously granted tolling of site plan approval during litigation.
• The meeting adjourned at approximately 2:00 PM after public comment.