Appealed: Tidal Wave Auto Spa
PC Decision Could Be Overturned
After the Planning Commission (PC) denied the concept site plan for Tidal Wave Auto Spa in October 2024, it was almost certain the matter would go before the Board of Appeals. The 5-2 decision by the PC came after a number of safety concerns were not addressed to the satisfaction of commission members. The concerns included traffic merging issues in a location that Chair Howard Thompson called “a very, very unsafe spot” at the time. Riverside Townhomes, a development just to the north, was denied for similar reasons.
Chris Longmore, attorney for the applicant, urged the commission to consider what could potentially be built on the property if the car wash was rejected. “You should think about what could go there, and what is going there, and the reasonableness of it,” he said. Longmore also emphasized that zoning on the land had been recommended by the Planning Commission to the County Commissioners just five years ago. Now, he’s filed an appeal.
On January 9th, the Board of Appeals (BOA) will review the concept plan for Tidal Wave Auto Spa “de novo.” Basically, the BOA takes a fresh look at the facts without considering the reasons behind the PC’s denial. If a concept plan meets all requirements of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO), and is in line with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan (CP), the BOA will typically approve the project.
In the application for appeal, Longmore outlines six statements on which the appeal is based: the PC “considered information that was not within the record…the[ir] personal opinions and experiences;” the PC “considered information…that was irrelevant…the existing development of an adjacent parcel;” the PC “failed to make findings required by…the [CZO];” the PC “failed to accept the Traffic Impact Study…despite…no credible, relevant or substantial evidence…to rebut;” the PC “took actions that went beyond their authority” by “making determinations regarding traffic and other adequate public facilities” when the CZO gives these powers to the Planning Director; and that the PC “took actions that were contrary to the state goals and objectives of the…CP and CZO.”
The staff report prepared by LUGM for the Board of Appeals finds the concept site plan meets most requirements. For those it doesn’t, the applicant can request a variance from the Board of Appeals. This project will need a variance to reduce the required landscaping from 20% to 10.3% of the site area, and to reduce type “B” buffer yard from 32.5’ to 10’ and a fence along the northwestern boundary of the property. Additionally, because traffic impacts will further degrade the service level of the Route 235/4 intersection, a fee-in-lieu of $12,369.50 toward a new traffic light at 235/FDR Blvd must be approved.
Because this is a reset, the public has another chance to weigh in. Anyone can attend the meeting on January 9th, at 6:30PM at 41770 Baldridge Street in Leonardtown. If you can’t attend, comments can be emailed to sherrie.young@stmaryscountymd.gov by 12PM on January 8th.
Link to meeting agenda and documents: https://go.boarddocs.com/md/stmarysco/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=DC3R226BD043
Riverside Townhomes, which was denied by the PC in November 2024, is scheduled for appeal on February 13th. I’ll have more on that as the data approaches.
