Calvert County Board of Appeals Meeting and Public Hearing, July 2, 2026
Calvert County Board of Appeals Meeting and Public Hearing, July 2, 2026
The Calvert County Board of Appeals met on Thursday, July 2, 2026, to hear three cases: a special exception and variance for a proposed Wawa filling station (BOA2026-0007), a critical area and general variance for a detached garage (BOA2026-0013), and a critical area variance for a home addition (BOA2026-0015). The meeting was held in a hybrid format at the Chesapeake Hearing Room in Prince Frederick, beginning at 9:00 a.m. The board also addressed administrative updates and public comment.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Case BOA2026-0007: A letter from Don McDougall raised concerns about traffic congestion, pedestrian safety, and the impact of 2,000–2,500 daily vehicles on HG Trueman Road. Steve Oberg, representing neighboring property LPJ LLC, argued the applicant had not met the burden of proof for the special exception, particularly regarding congestion, and that the variance was self-imposed. Johnny Gott, owner of the existing Fastop station, testified that a Wawa would draw significant traffic off Route 4 onto the service road, increasing congestion and altering the character of Solomons. He also noted that neighboring parcels may be under common ownership, questioning the need for a variance.
- Case BOA2026-0013: A letter of support from neighbor Matt King was submitted. Angela and William Stickle testified to the family need for space to care for Angela's mother, who has cognitive and physical disabilities. They described property constraints including an existing pool, septic drain fields, and critical area boundaries.
- Case BOA2026-0015: No public comments were received. The applicant, John and Patricia Wahl, were represented by Jeff Toole, who noted the Scientist Cliffs Homeowners Association had approved the project.
Discussion Items
- Case BOA2026-0007 – Anthony Olekson of COA Barrett, LLC, for Handin Solomons LLC: The applicant sought a special exception for an automobile filling station and a general variance to reduce the front setback from 100 ft to 60 ft for the canopy. The property is in the Town Center District (D1 sub-area). Engineer Anthony Olekson explained that the lot has an irregular shape, an existing concrete pad, and a combined state right-of-way for MD 2/4 and HG Trueman Road. The canopy would be set back 142 ft from the edge of pavement of Route 4. A traffic study would be required at the detailed site plan stage. Board members expressed concern about traffic congestion, noting the criteria require evidence that the use "will not create congestion." Attorney Mark Davis argued the board could condition approval on future site plan and traffic study approvals. After deliberation, the board voted to reopen the record and table the case for at least 90 days pending the submission of a traffic study.
- Case BOA2026-0013 – Angela Stickle: The applicant requested a critical area variance for 576 sq. ft. of steep slope impacts, a general variance to reduce the front setback from 35 ft to 10 ft, and a general variance to eliminate the 10 ft steep slope setback, to construct a 24 ft x 24 ft detached garage. The property is in the Waterfront Community District/Critical Area – Limited Development Area. The board found that the lot's slopes and existing septic and drain field locations created peculiar hardships. The variances were granted unanimously with conditions to complete the county permitting and inspection process and to provide required mitigation for steep slope impacts.
- Case BOA2026-0015 – John and Patricia Wahl: The applicant requested a critical area variance for 1,590 sq. ft. of impacts to steep slopes and the expanded buffer for a 385 sq. ft. attached addition. The lot in Scientists Cliffs is entirely over 15% slopes. The board found that the small addition was the minimum adjustment needed, would not harm the environment (with sediment control and upgraded septic), and that the hardship was due to site topography, not applicant actions. The variance was granted unanimously, subject to successful completion of county permitting.
Key Outcomes
- Case BOA2026-0007: The record was reopened, and the case was tabled for 90 days pending the applicant's submission of a traffic study. The board will revisit the special exception and variance after the study is reviewed.
- Case BOA2026-0013: All three variances (critical area and two general variances) were granted unanimously. The applicant must comply with mitigation requirements for steep slope disturbance.
- Case BOA2026-0015: The critical area variance was granted unanimously. The applicant must complete the Calvert County permitting and inspection process and implement sediment controls.
- Administrative Session: The board noted that the Lesby Villas case (C-04-CV-26-000112) is scheduled for an administrative hearing on September 8, 2026. The update on rules of procedure was postponed to July 21, 2026.
Meeting Transcript
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the July 2nd, 2026, Calvert County Board of Appeals public hearing. We'll begin the hearing by taking roll. Mr. Clark. Here. Mr. Briscoe. Here. Mr. Scott. Here. And myself, we have established a quorum. Our counsel this morning is Mrs. Lisa Smith Sanders. The board's administrator is Tamara Blake Wallace. The board's acting coordinator is Kelsey Holland and assisting is Lisa Kreps. We are in a hybrid format this morning with both in-person and virtual attendees via Teams. At this time, staff will go over the team's etiquette for the hearing. Welcome to today's Board of Appeals public hearing. I will be your team's host. This meeting is being recorded on video and audio for record keeping purposes. Those who testify in today's hearing or previously submitted written correspondence shall be considered a party of interest. Please keep yourself muted until you are called on to speak. Use the raise hand function, and I will call on you when it is your turn. Say your name each time you speak for the benefit of those who cannot see you. Only use chat feature for technical issues and not to comment about cases. Comments in chat cannot be included as part of the official record. Does anyone have any questions about using Teams or Teams etiquette? It's just County Employees Online, sir. Thank you. Today's hearing will be conducted in the following manner. I will call the case to be heard. I will then call on the applicants to identify themselves by stating their name and address. If the speaker is acting as a representative, I will ask them to identify the applicant they represent. Staff will address the public notice requirement and mark the exhibits, then swear in the applicants and interested parties wishing to give testimony. Next, the applicant will present their case. We ask that the applicant or representative please take the time to clearly address the approval criteria. The board must use this to render their decision for each case. Persons wishing to cross-examine witnesses will be provided the opportunity to do so. This will be for questions only, not testimony. Any person wishing to testify on a case will be given an opportunity to speak. Persons testifying will need to identify themselves by name and address, whether participating in person or virtually. Individuals may be limited to two minutes, and a group spokesperson may have up to five minutes to speak. Time limits are at the discretion of the board chair. All testimony must be sworn. The applicants will have a final opportunity to respond to any public testimony and present closing statements. The board will make findings of fact based on exhibits submitted and accepted prior to or during the hearing and testimony heard today. The board will render a decision within 45 days after the case is closed, and an order will be issued no later than 45 days after the decision is rendered. The rules of procedure, agenda, and transcripts are available through the board staff.
openpublica.com