[0:06] This hearing in session, we are here
[0:08] to hear case number Bo A 2 6 0 7 0 2 4 6.
[0:14] Let the record show that the applicants have agreed
[0:15] to have this hearing heard by only two board members.
[0:20] Will all who wish to testify, please rise
[0:22] and take the following oath.
[0:29] All right. Do you solemnly swear
[0:30] or affirm under the penalty of perjury
[0:32] that the testimony you're about
[0:33] to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
[0:35] I do. Ms. Maxwell have all
[0:40] posting and notification requirements
[0:41] been satisfied for this hearing?
[0:43] Yes. Any matters relating to the jurisdiction
[0:46] of this board will now be heard.
[0:48] The records show there were none.
[0:51] Anyone who wishes to testify in this matter must provide
[0:54] their name and contact number information
[0:55] with the board's clerk.
[0:59] And so now we'll start
[1:00] with Department of Planning and Zoning.
[1:04] Good evening, Stephanie Jones.
[1:05] Long Range principal planner.
[1:07] The application before you, like you'd mentioned,
[1:10] it is BOA 26 0 7 0 2 4 6.
[1:14] The developer Christine, a fantasy.
[1:17] The project location is 1 7 6 Herb Lane, Queenstown,
[1:21] Maryland Map 73, parcel 13 lot 20.
[1:25] The existing lot size is 2.58 acres, a zoning of NC one,
[1:30] and the applicant is proposing to construct a replacement
[1:33] of a pool, pool, patio
[1:34] and decking, landing stairs, retaining walls,
[1:37] and gravel driveway for the total disturbance
[1:39] of 1,837 square feet within the 100
[1:42] foot critical area buffer.
[1:44] Therefore, they're requesting a variance from 14 one dash 51
[1:48] a buffer standards and requirements.
[1:51] So the property itself is located on the south end of
[1:57] Bennett Point Road.
[1:58] So it's down here where this red.is east
[2:01] of Pigpen Point Road, north of Helm Road
[2:04] and then accessed off of Herb Lane.
[2:08] So the existing conditions for the site, we already went
[2:12] through the the acreage.
[2:13] So the site is currently improved
[2:14] with a single family dwelling
[2:16] and associate accessory structures,
[2:18] including a pier pool outbuildings.
[2:20] On the original, there was an original structure,
[2:23] single family dwelling that was constructed in 1948
[2:26] and there was a demolition permit for on November 6th, 2023,
[2:31] in which the original house was demolished,
[2:34] that was located in the buffer,
[2:35] and then all the accessory structures remained.
[2:37] And then it was a permit to construct a new single family
[2:40] dwelling on November 15th, 2023.
[2:42] And that dwelling is under construction.
[2:44] So you kind of see that in the aerial imagery there.
[2:47] And then the lot coverage
[2:48] to be removed is 4,776 square feet.
[2:56] So the property is zoned NC one
[2:58] and single family dwellings are permitted in
[3:00] the NC one district.
[3:02] And then regards to environmental features,
[3:05] the property is in an AE flood zone elevation five,
[3:09] and that's on the left hand side of your screen in the blue.
[3:11] Then the right hand side is tidal waters.
[3:13] There's no title wetlands that'll actually be impacted.
[3:17] And there's no stream steep slopes, non-Title wetlands
[3:19] or Maryland habitat protection areas except for the buffer.
[3:25] And then for critical area,
[3:26] the property is designated limited development area 22.6%
[3:30] of the lot coverage exists on this site,
[3:32] which exceeds the 15% limitation.
[3:35] There's existing pool, pool, patio, wood deck, concrete pad
[3:38] and steps and gravel area are
[3:40] within the a hundred foot buffer.
[3:42] And the original single family dwelling was located
[3:44] within the a hundred foot buffer.
[3:46] The new dwelling is outside of the a hundred foot buffer.
[3:48] And then there's no B buffer mitigation required due
[3:52] to the amount of lot coverage that they're removing
[3:55] in reference to the site plan.
[3:57] The existing lot coverage within the a hundred foot buffer
[3:59] to be removed, like I said, is 4,766 square feet.
[4:04] In reference to the proposal for the site,
[4:05] the applicant is close is proposing a 641 square foot pool,
[4:10] which is located here, 837 square feet of patio
[4:15] around the pool, 7,074 square feet of wood decking here,
[4:20] 50 square feet of landing,
[4:22] and then 94 square feet
[4:24] of a retaining wall, which is located here.
[4:26] And then 41 square feet of gravel,
[4:29] which is located in this area here.
[4:31] So the overall reduction
[4:33] of lot coverage is 2,929 square feet.
[4:36] The existing pool and patio
[4:38] from here is located 35.5 feet from mean high waterline,
[4:43] and then the proposed pool will be 58.2.
[4:46] So essentially they're moving at landward 22.7 feet.
[4:51] Then the closest structure
[4:53] to the mean high water line will be this ending point
[4:56] of the retaining wall, which will be 37.8 feet.
[5:01] And then the pink line here, sorry,
[5:03] is the buffer buffer line itself
[5:08] In reference to the unwarranted hardship.
[5:10] So these are the tests that have to be met in order
[5:12] to grant a variance relative to 14,166,
[5:16] which is our local standards.
[5:17] And then komar findings, we have
[5:19] to address the unwarranted hardship based on the conditions
[5:22] of the land and the particular property itself.
[5:25] So the entirety of the parcel is to be analyzed
[5:27] for the location of the replacement pool.
[5:30] I'm gonna go back a few images here
[5:32] to show you the entirety of the property.
[5:35] Here we go. So this is the entirety of the 200
[5:37] or the 2.58 acres.
[5:40] There's a garage located here, a shed in this location.
[5:43] The driveway does come in in this direction.
[5:46] The septic reserve area is located here.
[5:50] And then the question is, you know, what about, you know,
[5:53] can the pool be located here, here or here?
[5:56] There is an existed existing drainage swale
[5:58] that does come down this way on the
[6:00] south side of the driveway.
[6:03] Go back to In reference to, if
[6:07] You go back to slides.
[6:08] Yep. One, yeah.
[6:11] So isn't that, wouldn't that, those areas
[6:14] that you were just asking be within that blue?
[6:19] No. So they're essentially to outside of this area here.
[6:23] So they would be behind the dwelling.
[6:25] That's a split screen. Yeah. Oh,
[6:27] So these, this is same.
[6:29] It's a mirror image. Just reaction to earlier.
[6:31] Thank you. Yeah, yeah. And now I see. Yep.
[6:35] Sorry for the confusion.
[6:38] All right, then back in reference
[6:40] to the unwarranted unwarranted hardship, it is not clear
[6:44] how the configuration of the parcel
[6:46] of this parcel is unique.
[6:48] I think the applicant references the location of the,
[6:51] what was the previous dwelling and the pool in the buffer.
[6:56] That is probably not peculiar to just this parcel
[6:58] because there's many houses and pools
[7:01] and accessory structures that are located in the buffer.
[7:04] That's just how you know dwellings were developed prior
[7:07] to the critical area law that retaining wall,
[7:10] gravel driveway and woodham steps should also also be
[7:13] evaluated in reference to the unwarranted hardship.
[7:17] So we're not just looking at
[7:18] locating the pool and the buffer.
[7:19] There's also these ancillary structures that are needed
[7:21] to be proposed to be constructed.
[7:24] My one question, which you may wanna reach clarification on
[7:27] is this gravel area here.
[7:30] There is, I'm assuming there was gravel removed past the
[7:35] critical area buffer line,
[7:37] and they're proposing this little patch of gravel.
[7:39] So I'm not sure if it was to be connected to something else.
[7:43] So that might be a point of clar clarification needed
[7:50] In reference to the, if this, if the little interpretation
[7:54] of the critical air program would deprive the applicant from
[7:57] a use or structure permitted to others,
[7:59] the single family dwelling isn't allowed permit principal
[8:02] use in this district.
[8:03] The Board of Appeal shall determine if an accessory
[8:06] structure such as the pool
[8:08] and the ancillary structures are a reasonable use
[8:10] of the property in the buffer.
[8:12] And are those conditions the result
[8:13] of the action of the applicant.
[8:16] So like I mentioned, the applicant
[8:19] did submit a single family dwelling permit
[8:21] for this structure here, and that was in 2023, I believe.
[8:27] So the question is, was the pool contemplated
[8:29] or the replacement of the pool contemplated at
[8:31] that point in time when the house was moved?
[8:36] Also, it needs to be the minimum deviation from the
[8:38] what 14 does require.
[8:42] They are reducing the size of the pool.
[8:44] Also, they're reducing the net in net lot
[8:47] coverage on the site.
[8:49] But also you should analyze the minimum deviation
[8:52] for the entirety of all the structures, not just the pool.
[8:56] Will. It basically impact water quality or adverse impacts.
[8:59] Like I mentioned, they are moving the pool away from mean
[9:02] high water, decreasing the lot coverage.
[9:04] There's no vegetation to be removed on the site,
[9:08] but addressing what the stabilization will look like
[9:10] for the areas in which demolition is occurring.
[9:15] And this is the response from the critical area commission
[9:19] that we received Based on the information
[9:21] provided, the board of Appeals will need
[9:23] to determine if the applicant has demonstrated the request
[9:26] meets each and every one
[9:27] of the critical area variance standards,
[9:28] including unwarranted hardship.
[9:31] The board should not consider convenience
[9:32] or preference when determining if the applicant has met
[9:35] unwarranted hardship.
[9:37] There appears to be space outside of the buffer.
[9:39] And then they go on to say every available opportunity
[9:42] should be looked at outside of the buffer.
[9:45] And then in response to recommendation from staff,
[9:48] staff finds consistency throughout some
[9:50] of the applicable laws in this case
[9:52] and does not object to the board granting the variance
[9:54] request inconsistency with comar and 14,166.
[9:59] But the Board of appeals should determine whether there is
[10:01] an unwarranted hardship and reasonable use
[10:03] and how the unwarranted hardship is
[10:05] peculiar to this property. And that's all.
[10:10] Okay, we're gonna enter planning and zoning staff report.
[10:15] And we're also gonna enter the packet
[10:17] of pre-marked applicant.
[10:18] Exhibits one through nine is what we have.
[10:23] Those in favor of granting this
[10:24] application will now be heard.
[10:25] Please give your name and address.
[10:30] Good evening, Brendan Mullaney with McAllister Diar Show.
[10:32] Walter and Walker, 100 Northwest Street, Easton, Maryland.
[10:37] Brett Ewing, lane Engineering one 17 Bay Street, Easton.
[10:42] Brett and I are here on behalf of Christine Nessy,
[10:46] who's the owner of this waterfront property in the county.
[10:49] And staff's done a really thorough job of going
[10:53] through the particulars.
[10:55] I'm happy to be as detailed as you all would like me to be,
[10:58] but in a lot of instances,
[11:00] especially when we've submitted a pretty robust narrative,
[11:04] I would like to, and that's already been entered
[11:06] as an exhibit to the record, rely on the written testimony,
[11:09] just give an overview of the tenets of
[11:12] variance requirements,
[11:14] how this applicant has satisfied them,
[11:15] and then have Brett walk through the, the site constraints
[11:19] and what's proposed.
[11:20] And then just answer questions that you all
[11:21] have, if that's acceptable.
[11:23] And staff did a good job of giving the hurdles you need
[11:26] to, you need to clear here.
[11:27] So understood. So just generally speaking,
[11:30] variances require a property owner to show
[11:32] that there's a property specific hardship
[11:35] that is depriving a reasonable use of the property.
[11:39] And this board has considered in the past
[11:43] site constraints on specific properties.
[11:45] And in a lot of these instances,
[11:47] the site constraints are a legal grandfathered,
[11:51] non-conforming structure or the existence of an SDA
[11:54] or site topography, or the narrowness of a parcel
[11:58] or the odd configuration or layout of a parcel.
[12:01] And in considering those on a case by case basis, has found
[12:04] that there are constraints
[12:06] that are eliminating a reasonable use of
[12:10] property in this instance.
[12:11] And Brett's gonna go through in more particular detail,
[12:15] what is west of the,
[12:17] the critical area buffer line on this property?
[12:21] There is, there are a number of specific site constraints
[12:26] that make the location that is proposed the
[12:31] viable and reasonable location for this pool.
[12:34] The property was first improved in the late forties,
[12:38] and subsequent to that, but
[12:39] before the critical area law was adopted in the late
[12:43] eighties, the property was further improved with a pool
[12:46] and accessory structures.
[12:49] The parcel was, since Ms.
[12:51] Nessy bought the property, the house was replaced.
[12:54] And in replacing the house,
[12:55] which was within the 100 foot buffer, Ms.
[12:58] Nessy chose to shift that outside of the buffer,
[13:01] which was a, a net betterment for the adjacent water body
[13:05] and furtherance of the county comprehensive plan
[13:08] and furtherance of the critical area goals, et cetera.
[13:11] The question was posed at some point
[13:13] through the application process, well why,
[13:15] why wasn't the house at
[13:16] that point in time shifted further away to ensure
[13:19] that the pool could be relocated outside of the buffer?
[13:22] And the answer to that is, if you look at this one page
[13:25] variance exhibit that was submitted by Lane Engineering,
[13:30] the sewage disposal area is immediately west of the house
[13:34] as it has been relocated.
[13:35] So there wasn't room at that point in time.
[13:38] Now also at that point in time, I don't believe
[13:40] that the pool, the pool relocation, was this the,
[13:45] the exhibit you're It is not, no.
[13:49] I just want to identify the, the number for the record here.
[13:55] Maybe that one that you just Yeah, yep.
[13:59] So applicant exhibit
[14:01] six, sorry to interrupt you.
[14:08] So relocating the house outside
[14:11] of the buffer was a net improvement,
[14:12] but it, it's up against the sewage disposal
[14:14] area on the west side.
[14:16] So it, it wouldn't even be possible,
[14:18] even if the house hadn't been reconstructed
[14:21] and relocated in the last few years
[14:23] to shift everything entirely outside of the buffer
[14:25] and still have the pool between the, the house as it exists
[14:30] and the mean high water line.
[14:36] We are requesting approval of a variance to allow
[14:40] reconfiguration of lock coverage in the buffer.
[14:43] We've gone to great lengths, I believe, to design this
[14:48] proposal to result in a, a really significant
[14:52] reduction in lot coverage in furtherance
[14:55] of critical area goals
[14:56] and furtherance of the county environ environmental
[14:59] protection and, and buffer and critical area goals.
[15:02] In general, the existing lot coverage is 24.9%
[15:07] right now, the limitation in the LDA limited development
[15:11] area that applies to this property is 15%.
[15:14] So this property is currently 9.9% over
[15:17] the permitted threshold.
[15:20] All of that is legal grandfathered non-conforming,
[15:23] but we are proposing as part of this
[15:26] lot coverage reconfiguration
[15:28] and pool relocation to do,
[15:31] do two major things when it comes
[15:33] to the environmental impacts.
[15:35] The first is to reduce the lot coverage on site by a total
[15:39] of 3,127 square feet.
[15:42] All of that is within the critical area
[15:44] and will be removed voluntarily.
[15:45] It isn't a requirement of the law,
[15:47] but we believe that it's in furtherance of the goals
[15:49] of the county and the state within the 100 foot buffer.
[15:53] We're proposing a reduction of 2,929 square feet,
[15:58] which brings the lot coverage in the buffer down from
[16:03] 26.2%
[16:06] to 15.6%.
[16:09] So it's a, it's a significant reduction of lot coverage.
[16:12] Again, this is shown on the exhibit,
[16:14] I think you said exhibit six in the on the bottom diagram.
[16:19] Yep. Which is the demolition part of that plan.
[16:25] The existing pool is 35.5 feet from mean high
[16:30] water that's proposed to be shifted away from the water
[16:33] and will be located the edge
[16:35] of the pool at 58.2 feet from mean high water,
[16:38] which is 22.7 feet away.
[16:40] So it's a, a net benefit to the goals of the critical area
[16:45] and the county when it comes to impacts to the buffer,
[16:50] the pool, while it can lawfully remain and,
[16:53] and be repaired in place and,
[16:55] and be used, it is currently leaking.
[16:58] And the preference from a functionality perspective,
[17:02] but also from a net impact perspective to the, the site is
[17:07] to reduce the size of the pool
[17:09] and locate it adjacent to the house as it currently exists.
[17:14] With that, Brett, I'm just gonna have you go through the,
[17:18] the specific site constraints
[17:19] and the layout as it's proposed,
[17:21] and then I'm gonna quickly hit the
[17:23] variance criteria and then we'll answer questions.
[17:25] Sure thing. So, as Brenda, as a formality, I'm sorry
[17:29] to interrupt you, just as you, I don't always do this,
[17:31] but just as a formality i'd, I'd like
[17:33] to have Brett introduced and accepted
[17:35] by the board as an expert.
[17:37] So Brett, will you just talk about your, your
[17:42] background, what you've done, your background?
[17:44] Yeah, your education, your professional affiliation. Yeah.
[17:47] The company that you're with, et cetera.
[17:49] You're asking me to speak highly of myself.
[17:52] I would, I would like that please, just for a moment. Yeah.
[17:54] So 20 years of experience, bachelor, bachelor
[17:58] of science from Salisbury University.
[18:01] I've worked in three public sectors in Delaware,
[18:05] Talbot County, town of Easton for about a decade.
[18:08] I've been at Lane Engineering for just about a decade.
[18:12] I'm now a principal, part owner of Lane Engineering as well.
[18:16] So I've been doing this for 20 years
[18:18] in basically the Eastern shore
[18:19] And Brett at, at Lane.
[18:21] Well, let's, let's start with your, in your government role.
[18:24] You reviewed opined on
[18:27] and approved various site plans, construction plans,
[18:32] site development plans, stormwater plans,
[18:34] you reviewed erosion sediment control plans as part of the
[18:37] project process, correct?
[18:38] Correct. Yeah. My role in when I was
[18:40] with the public sector was with planning
[18:42] and zoning in those different agencies that I referenced.
[18:45] So again, part of these hearings on, on other side
[18:48] of the Fence Planning Commission, board
[18:50] of Appeals Variances, what have you, any sort
[18:53] of development requests similar to this.
[18:55] And tell me some about
[18:56] what you do at Lane Engineering Day, day to
[18:58] Day, day-to-day project management, basically dealing
[19:02] with projects very similar to this from a scale from small,
[19:08] you know, staking property corners
[19:10] to several hundred unit projects, you know,
[19:13] residential projects is you,
[19:16] the meat and potatoes of what we do.
[19:18] And we do several hundred of these a year.
[19:21] And you oversee all aspects
[19:23] of the Design Pro process, correct?
[19:25] Correct. You're familiar with Topography impacts,
[19:29] you're familiar with the critical area law Yes.
[19:31] And implications of critical area design
[19:33] and the buffer impacts.
[19:34] Is that accurate? Yes. Yep.
[19:36] You're familiar with the property 1 76
[19:39] Herb Lane and Queenstown.
[19:40] Yep. Correct. And you've been overseeing
[19:43] and involved with this site design over the last few years?
[19:46] Yes. Is that accurate? Yes. You're familiar
[19:48] with the materials that we've
[19:49] submitted as part of this variance process?
[19:51] I am. Okay. So with that, I would ask
[19:53] that the board recognize Mr. Ewing
[19:55] as an expert in site design, residential
[19:59] development in state of Maryland and Queen Annes County.
[20:02] I had no issue with that. You good with that?
[20:06] Any motion for that? No,
[20:07] I just wanna check and make sure you're good with that.
[20:10] Fine, thank you. Okay. With that, Brett. Okay.
[20:15] All right. So as Brenda mentioned, I do,
[20:18] we have several criteria to deal with as a part
[20:20] of this variance ask.
[20:22] I wanna point out, we talked about the
[20:24] removal of impervious.
[20:25] There's, there's a large gravel area down
[20:28] by the boat slip also that's being removed.
[20:30] I don't think that was noted, but that's an area
[20:32] that's not really associated with this pool project.
[20:35] But again, it's the, the applicant's intent to
[20:38] improve the water quality improve this site.
[20:41] And so just removing that gravel in that area, again,
[20:45] it is really not associated
[20:46] and nothing really that's needed for that removal
[20:49] for this pool, but we just decided to proceed with
[20:52] that component.
[20:54] So again, the net reduction of the impervious.
[20:57] The other component too that's being proposed
[21:00] that I think is, is a betterment of, of everything is
[21:04] storm water management.
[21:05] You know, we are, we do have a, a flow through planter box
[21:08] that's proposed with this application as well, which
[21:11] before the pool obviously built when it was decades
[21:14] and decades ago, had no storm water management aspect to it.
[21:17] So not only but the, the net reduction of the impervious,
[21:20] but also the now proposal of storm water as part
[21:24] of this project, I think is certainly a major
[21:27] increase in the water quality component
[21:28] of this, of this site.
[21:30] So just so I can be crystal clear on that, yeah, there,
[21:33] there's no requirement that stormwater
[21:35] with the existing pool be treated,
[21:38] the law doesn't require the code doesn't require
[21:40] that any stormwater measures be installed on site.
[21:44] That's part of the reconfiguration,
[21:47] the coverage and movement. That is correct.
[21:49] Yep. So another component of the pool,
[21:52] and I'm not sure if everybody's visited the site,
[21:54] but if you, if you did, you'll notice that the,
[21:56] the elevation of what this pool sits at relative to the,
[22:00] the grade around that.
[22:01] And so I would call that a pad site.
[22:03] So you have this existing pool is already you,
[22:05] you already have this established pad site on
[22:08] that side of the house.
[22:10] And with this relocation of this pool, we're not, we,
[22:13] we don't have to establish a new pad site.
[22:16] We are using that same elevation,
[22:18] that same pad site that exists today.
[22:20] That in itself reduces the amount of disturbance
[22:23] that is associated with this project.
[22:25] Alternatively, if you have
[22:27] to build this pool in a new location, well guess what?
[22:29] You're establishing an entirely new pad site.
[22:32] You're doing entirely new area
[22:33] of clearing, more disturbance.
[22:35] And again, you're disturbance with the pool.
[22:37] I know we've all seen pools be,
[22:39] you know, improved or constructed.
[22:41] You usually have a 30 to 40 foot wide perimeter
[22:44] around the edge of the patio just to grade these pools in.
[22:48] You generally put the pool at the high side of the elevation
[22:51] and then you backfill on the low side.
[22:53] So I think it's a significant reduction of just limits
[22:56] of disturbance of the site
[22:59] based on using this already established pad site
[23:02] and this elevation that's directly adjacent to the house.
[23:05] So I think that in itself is a very key component that we,
[23:09] why we want to leave this pool where it is just to, to talk
[23:13] to some other technical components.
[23:15] You know, the north side of the house wasn't referenced
[23:17] and I think we understand why there is a, well, on
[23:20] that side, there's a transformer, the, the house,
[23:23] the utilities are served from that northern side as well.
[23:26] So again, in my, you know, practical mind I say,
[23:29] well the only reasonable location
[23:31] that somebody could enjoy their pool
[23:33] and have a water view, it'd be the north end.
[23:36] The north end is encumbered with utilities
[23:38] and the well, et cetera.
[23:39] Brendan mentioned the, the west side and, and the SDA
[23:44] or SRA impacts the area just to the west
[23:47] of the drive circle.
[23:49] And I'm not sure if we have the site plan.
[23:50] Do you mind pulling that up please?
[23:53] So again, speaking of the elevation change, you know,
[23:56] this circle or this house, you know, the house,
[23:59] the finished floor elevation of the house is 18
[24:01] and a half feet.
[24:03] And you know, these areas to the southwest are
[24:06] elevation tents.
[24:07] You're talking eight, nine,
[24:09] sometimes 10 foot elevation change from
[24:11] where this house sits down to where a potential, you know,
[24:15] pool location could be west of that drive circle.
[24:19] You, you're on a side of, side of this slope
[24:22] that I'm talking about where you have this grade
[24:24] differential in this slope coming down.
[24:26] That would be just a very costly and,
[24:28] and kind of not practical location for a pool,
[24:31] in our opinion, west of that circle.
[24:34] So you would have to do, you would've to, to your,
[24:37] to your prior conversation, you would have
[24:39] to do considerable buildup to get to that level.
[24:42] You would have a significant retaining wall
[24:44] that's several feet in height.
[24:45] This again, that's just, it's not a practical component.
[24:49] That wouldn't be what we would advise,
[24:52] you know, a client to do.
[24:54] Plus you also have, then you have a, a, you know, three
[24:57] to five foot wall off one side.
[24:59] And if you have young children
[25:00] or what have you using the pool,
[25:01] then you have a safety hazard
[25:03] with this large retaining wall on the edge of this pool.
[25:06] So it's just something that's not ideal.
[25:08] What's gonna be the height of the other retaining wall
[25:10] that's proposed, that's at the proposed side.
[25:13] Those retaining walls are there, there are several feet,
[25:16] but that's for that, that driveway that the garage, that,
[25:20] that lower grade garage access.
[25:22] Got it going in. And do you want to, I mean,
[25:26] I can get talk about the southwest side as well.
[25:28] Do you want to Yeah, sure. Keep continue with that.
[25:31] We can talk about that. I mean,
[25:31] understanding the site constraints is
[25:33] Critical.
[25:34] Yeah. So again, so the southwest side as,
[25:36] as was discussed in the staff report, there's a,
[25:38] a swale cutting through there.
[25:40] You have the existing driveway, so walking from the house
[25:43] to the southwest side, albeit it may have some open areas.
[25:48] Again, you're going to have a whole new pad site.
[25:50] You're going to have, again, probably close
[25:53] to 8,000 square feet of new disturbance in that area.
[25:56] That's right now undisturbed, that area is about 150 feet,
[26:01] 160 feet from the house.
[26:03] So you're walking from the house down 10 feet of elevation
[26:07] across the driveway, across the drainage whale to get
[26:10] to a potential pool location.
[26:13] We don't think that's practical in, in our opinion.
[26:18] Again, we do, you do not want to impact this drainage swale.
[26:21] So that would push the pool to the south more so,
[26:25] and the further you go to the south,
[26:26] if you see on the aerial,
[26:27] there are some trees on that property line.
[26:29] And in our opinion, those trees would be impacted if we had
[26:33] to put the pool down here and also avoid that drainage.
[26:35] S well, so there's just some other com you know, again,
[26:38] aspects like, you know, not wanting to
[26:42] impact trees and all the disturbance
[26:45] that we're talking about here.
[26:47] Would your, would your view of the pool from the house in
[26:50] that other location there south
[26:52] of the driveway be restricted?
[26:56] Yeah, I think that's another safety standpoint.
[26:57] Again, getting back to a safety component.
[26:59] And I don't know if Brendan wants to speak to that more
[27:01] so than I, but again, we talk about, you know,
[27:04] young children, grandchildren visiting the site,
[27:06] not being able to monitor these children in a pool,
[27:09] you know, that again, that gets back
[27:10] to a safety aspect in our opinion.
[27:13] Yeah, let me just add a little bit
[27:14] of color to that comment.
[27:16] The, the intention Ms.
[27:20] F's intention here is she, she built this house.
[27:22] She, she bought it a few years ago. She rebuilt the house.
[27:24] It has a first floor master suite so that she can
[27:29] age in place here and, and live here, you know, long term.
[27:32] And the intention here is for it to be, you know,
[27:35] her last home and having the, the functional side,
[27:39] the reasonable and safety aspect of this as part
[27:42] of the analysis in the discussion in the,
[27:46] in the southwest corner of the property, that
[27:48] that pool would be located if you cut down those trees
[27:51] and brought in all of that filter
[27:52] and had the retaining walls about 220 feet away from the
[27:56] house, which is, you know, more than two thirds
[27:58] of the length of a football field.
[28:00] It just is not reasonable
[28:02] or practical for somebody aging in place
[28:05] to walk almost a football field's length downhill to get
[28:08] to a pool.
[28:10] From a safety perspective,
[28:13] miss Nessy has four young grandkids that visit frequently.
[28:16] As, as Brett just stated,
[28:18] there are concerns about safety if a pool were to be located
[28:22] that far away from the house from an oversight perspective.
[28:27] And I think just to add to that as well,
[28:29] I think the other component we we're, we've noted the
[28:32] reduction of impervious surface on the site.
[28:34] You know, most folks on a walkway to their,
[28:37] to their pool from the house.
[28:38] And you, you would have a 200 foot four foot wide walkway.
[28:42] I mean you're adding, you know, 800 square feet
[28:44] of new impervious back just to check a box for some standard
[28:49] that again, I think we're, we're trying to prove doesn't,
[28:52] doesn't make sense in this case.
[28:55] So Brett, just a couple of questions.
[28:57] I just wanna make sure that I understood
[28:58] what you've said in the last couple minutes.
[29:02] As a somebody, you
[29:05] and I have been through a number of these
[29:06] hearings over the years.
[29:07] Somebody who's familiar with site design, familiar
[29:09] with county code and critical area legal requirements
[29:13] and site design constraints.
[29:15] Do you believe that there are,
[29:19] based on this particular property
[29:22] and the layout as it exists
[29:24] and the legal grandfathered non-conforming structures
[29:27] that have existed for four plus six decades,
[29:32] do you recognize site specific constraints
[29:35] that eliminate any other reasonable location for this pool?
[29:39] Yes. And do you believe that if the pool were relocated
[29:42] outside of the buffer anywhere else on site,
[29:46] it would result, it would likely result in clearing
[29:49] of vegetation and trees that isn't currently proposed?
[29:52] That's, that's one com Yeah. One aspect, yes.
[29:54] And you also believe that it would result in more
[29:56] disturbance than what is going to result?
[29:58] Yes. And both of those things result in greater impacts to
[30:03] land within the critical area
[30:05] and vegetation within the critical area and water quality.
[30:08] Understood. Yes. Yep.
[30:09] And, and just to be clear, what's proposed
[30:11] with this lot coverage reconfiguration is storm water
[30:15] measures that will further protect the adjacent
[30:19] water body within the buffer?
[30:20] Yes. Understood. Okay.
[30:24] Just quickly, and again, I'd like to just rely on the 12
[30:27] or 16 page variance narrative
[30:30] that we submitted addressing both state and county regulat
[30:34] or criteria that have to be addressed.
[30:38] You've heard that there is a,
[30:42] a property specific hardship in the form of site constraints
[30:46] and an existing layout
[30:47] and existing structures that are all lawful,
[30:49] but create conditions where the only reasonable
[30:52] and viable option for this pool location is as proposed.
[30:58] The conditions are peculiar to this property.
[31:00] This house is not located
[31:02] and wasn't built in 1948 on another property.
[31:05] The driveway that lawfully exists
[31:07] wasn't built on another property.
[31:09] The SDA wasn't built on another property
[31:11] and platted on another property.
[31:13] And the lot line configurations that exist
[31:15] as they do don't exist on another property.
[31:18] These are property specific peculiar
[31:20] to the property that is involved.
[31:22] The conditions are not the result
[31:24] of any action taken by the applicant.
[31:26] Again, all of this development,
[31:27] other than the lawful relocation of the house adjacent
[31:31] to the sewage disposal area, was done by property
[31:34] owners in the past before Ms.
[31:37] Nessy purchased the property.
[31:39] And really what changed that brings us
[31:42] before you is the critical area law was adopted in the
[31:44] eighties, which imposed the 100 foot buffer.
[31:46] The pool is lawfully within the 100 foot buffer.
[31:50] The variance will not be contrary to the public interest
[31:52] or the policies, goals, and objectives of Chapter 14 one
[31:55] and the Queen Annes County critical area program,
[31:58] you've heard through expert testimony
[32:00] that this results in a net benefit
[32:02] to the adjacent water body and the critical area
[32:05] and the buffer storm water will be treated beyond
[32:08] what is there today.
[32:10] And the applicant is proposing
[32:11] to voluntarily reduce a significant amount of lot coverage
[32:16] on the site as part of this plan.
[32:20] Variance will not confer upon an applicant any special
[32:22] privilege to denied to other owners of lake property and
[32:26] or structures within the critical area.
[32:29] I'd like to just hand out an aerial exhibit.
[32:31] I think this should be applicant's Exhibit 10. Correct.
[32:39] Thanks.
[32:49] So this is just a quick exhibit.
[32:52] I'm, I'm sure that the, the board's reviewed, you know,
[32:55] aerials and is familiar with properties in the vicinity.
[32:59] This is second sheet
[33:03] after the cover page is a, a general aerial
[33:07] of the vicinity of the property.
[33:09] You can see that the address identified at the top
[33:13] of the aerial 1 76 her lane is the subject property.
[33:17] And then as you work around to the south
[33:19] and the southwest of that, you can see that pools between
[33:25] houses and mean high water are a, a common and they
[33:28] and reasonable feature of residential improvements.
[33:32] You know, not just throughout the state,
[33:34] not just throughout Queen Anne's County,
[33:36] but in the immediate vicinity of the subject property
[33:42] denial of the variance would eliminate this applicant's
[33:45] ability to reconfigure the lot coverage in the buffer
[33:49] and make reasonable use
[33:50] therefore, of the property as proposed.
[33:55] I, I'm happy to go through each one of these,
[33:57] but we've given general dimensions of the proximity
[34:01] to mean high water of these various pools and pool decks.
[34:04] And as you can see there is a pattern of
[34:11] residential development, of course with pools
[34:14] between the house and mean high water.
[34:16] That's a reasonable and common improvement
[34:18] throughout the county.
[34:22] And I can just confirm for the record, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
[34:25] There are seven other pools that we've identified.
[34:28] And this was not an exhaustive search by any means.
[34:31] It was just a quick aerial takeoff to demonstrate this.
[34:36] The variance is the minimum deviation from the provisions
[34:39] of Chapter 14 one
[34:40] that will make possible the reasonable use of lander structures.
[34:43] This is a, a significant reduction.
[34:46] It's not just proposing to relocate the pool.
[34:48] We've gone above and beyond
[34:50] to eliminate lot coverage on this property
[34:52] and furtherance of the critical area
[34:54] and county goals when it comes to LDA property in the LDA
[34:58] and the buffer, shifting this up adjacent
[35:03] to the house, moves it further away from the property.
[35:06] The pool is not getting bigger, it's getting smaller.
[35:09] So we believe that this is the minimum deviation
[35:12] from the provisions of 14 one
[35:14] that make possible this reasonable proposal.
[35:17] And then the granting of the variance will be
[35:18] in harmony with the general purpose.
[35:19] And 10 of chapter 14 one,
[35:21] the Queen Anns County critical area program.
[35:22] And the variance shall not result in a use not permitted in
[35:25] the applicable development area.
[35:27] You've heard from staff that residential
[35:33] uses are permitted in the NC one district
[35:35] and in the LDA we agree with
[35:37] that accessory residential structures such
[35:39] as pools are permitted in the zoning district as well.
[35:43] This results in the betterment
[35:45] of water quality going into the adjacent water body.
[35:48] It results in a net decrease in lot coverage on site
[35:53] and we believe that it is in harmony
[35:57] with the general purpose and intent of the county code
[36:00] and state regulations.
[36:02] With that, happy to answer any questions that you have,
[36:05] but ask that the board looks at this favorably
[36:08] and approves the variance as requested.
[36:10] Good. One minor thing, just for clarification,
[36:12] staff mentioned a to the south side
[36:17] of the proposed pool, a a gravel pad
[36:20] and you mentioned a gravel area that was being removed.
[36:23] Is that one and the same or is there still a proposal
[36:26] for a gravel pad?
[36:27] It is there. And, and what would be the, so the purpose of,
[36:33] of that increase,
[36:35] This the one that I think right?
[36:38] I'm show you Okay. From the site plan. Yeah.
[36:42] The area that's being removed is hatched here. Yep.
[36:45] So all that is lock coverage. That's,
[36:46] and then you're retaining that small area, the area
[36:48] that is being added Okay.
[36:52] Is right here. So all that lot coverage is here. Okay.
[36:55] That's being removed on the southeast corner.
[36:57] There's a small corner here that's being proposed
[37:00] to be added and that is only to make the driveway uniform.
[37:05] Okay. So that's a, that's 41 square feet
[37:07] of lot coverage and that's outside.
[37:10] Oh no, it's just inside. It's inside. Yeah. Got it.
[37:15] So, so the driveway, this is a 25
[37:19] or 26 imagery,
[37:21] so it looks like the driveway was removed there.
[37:23] I don't know if that's the case or not,
[37:25] but if you're wanting to connect it to the existing
[37:28] two proposed driveway, if this is what's proposed,
[37:31] you're not gonna be able to be connected to a
[37:35] driveway outside of the buffer
[37:37] If that Well that's,
[37:39] I'm not sure, I'm not sure the logistics of it
[37:41] or what actually was demolished,
[37:43] but I'm just going by the aerial I imagery, so
[37:45] All that, so all that, yeah, that actually does
[37:48] on the permit site plan,
[37:49] that gravel does extend out to that point.
[37:52] Okay. It's just that little 41 square foot opening. But
[37:55] Technically it was removed.
[37:56] Actually, if you pull up the site plan, it's clearer than,
[37:59] I don't know who put this exhibit together, if it was staff
[38:01] or somebody from lane Engineering.
[38:03] But no, the site plan shows that the
[38:08] driveway is actually on the western boundary
[38:10] of that proposed area.
[38:13] I believe the area you were showing me is different than the
[38:15] area she was just pointing to there,
[38:22] But Yeah, ours is black and white,
[38:23] but you can see the line.
[38:30] Yeah. And this is, this exists here, that's not
[38:32] Correct.
[38:33] Yeah.
[38:36] Clarify. Is that the scene?
[38:40] I just wanna make sure whatever the vari,
[38:43] whatever's being requested, requested is
[38:44] that they don't have a gap in between.
[38:45] Right. A hundred foot buffer and the driveway that is now.
[38:48] Yeah. So you proposed with this variance, I
[38:50] Don't know if you had that exhibit up.
[38:51] So I'm trying to pull, there's, there's,
[38:54] you can see the line work of the existing driveway
[38:57] and that's being retained and being reestablished.
[39:00] You know, basically the gravel is gonna remain there.
[39:04] Mind if I, if you go into that area,
[39:13] I Think.
[39:14] Yep. So you see the, where on the left
[39:15] where it says proposed gravel for driveway,
[39:17] then on the right it says proposed gravel for driveway.
[39:19] They're just kind of following
[39:20] the edge of that retaining wall.
[39:21] So those see those lines.
[39:23] So that's your lines of your existing driveway
[39:26] that was surveyed again back when we surveyed this?
[39:31] I think it was a year or two ago.
[39:33] Yeah, I, I'm, I'm not particularly concerned by that,
[39:36] but she brought it up so I wanted to make sure we understood
[39:38] It.
[39:39] Yeah, if it was already removed previously,
[39:42] it's gone 'cause it's in the buffer
[39:45] And well, we can propose the it as part
[39:48] of the lot coverage
[39:49] Reconfiguration in The buffer,
[39:51] Which is what, But this
[39:52] application. Correct. Is that what you're
[39:53] Not with this application?
[39:54] No. 'cause you, I think with the permit application
[39:57] that was already approved for the house shows
[39:59] that gravel area are being retained.
[40:02] Okay. So that they're under construction right now.
[40:03] So they're, you know, you're, again, you're going
[40:05] to have some modifications of stuff,
[40:07] but generally in the critical area
[40:09] or in a buffer, you have a year if something's removed,
[40:12] you have a year to replace it
[40:13] and still retain that grandfathering component.
[40:16] I, I don't know for certain and I don't think so. Okay.
[40:18] But I, I will say the building permit application
[40:20] for the main house has the gravel driveway
[40:23] as we show it on this plan here.
[40:25] Okay. And so we're just kind of filling
[40:27] that gap in that buffer area.
[40:29] Okay. Again, to just fill the gap
[40:32] If you're, as long as you're, you're comfortable with it,
[40:33] I just wanted to make, put it out there so that Sure.
[40:35] You didn't have a hole in your the driveway. No. Well
[40:37] I appreciate you bringing that up.
[40:38] Yeah, thank you.
[40:42] Okay. You got any more questions?
[40:48] All right. Those persons opposing the granting
[40:50] of this application may now testify doesn't appear
[40:54] to be anyone we need to go into an executive session.
[40:59] I don't think so. So I don't think so either.
[41:04] I think it's an, I think it's an impressive plan.
[41:06] I think that the testimony shows that that location
[41:09] to the southwest of the,
[41:11] of the new house location would not be a reasonable
[41:13] and safe place for the pool.
[41:15] And that this is the logical location
[41:19] for the re relocation of the pool.
[41:21] There was a pool there on site when she purchased it.
[41:23] I think that it's shown to be a reasonable
[41:26] and expected usage of the residences in that home.
[41:30] I don't have an issue with it.
[41:32] Obviously we need to to go through the criteria though.
[41:34] I think it very well explain. Yeah.
[41:38] Ready? Ready. Okay.
[41:41] So both the staff report
[41:43] and the written narrative go through at length.
[41:47] The factors yes.
[41:48] That you all need to consider, but we kind of need
[41:53] to indicate a little specificity
[41:56] as we go through the factors.
[41:57] We can't just completely point to them.
[41:59] Does that make sense? So if you could just as you did Mr.
[42:04] Magine kind of point stuff out there, I'm gonna have you do
[42:07] that as we go through these criteria.
[42:08] Sure. Okay. Yep. So with respect to 14 one dash 66,
[42:13] the first thing that needs to be addressed is
[42:17] that a little literal enforcement
[42:18] of this Chapter 14 one would result in unnecessary hardship
[42:21] as a result of specified conditions,
[42:23] which hardship is not shared by owners
[42:25] of other property in the same development area.
[42:27] Yes. Yes. And I think, you know, the testimony shows that,
[42:32] you know, the, this this
[42:36] property was purchased with the pool.
[42:37] They're, they're, they're essentially replacing
[42:41] an existing feature
[42:43] with significant improvements in the only place
[42:46] that is reasonable to locate it
[42:48] and in a way that is gonna dramatically improve the
[42:50] conditions of the site.
[42:53] Okay. The next factor
[42:58] and in consideration of
[42:59] the testimony you heard today, correct?
[43:01] Yes. Those conditions are peculiar
[43:03] to the property involved?
[43:06] Yes. Yes. Why do you believe they're
[43:08] peculiar to the property involved?
[43:11] I know I'm forcing a little bit more,
[43:12] but I think in these cases with buffer requirements, we need
[43:16] to put a little bit more out there if we
[43:19] can on the record.
[43:23] So we, we've looked at the topography of the property,
[43:25] we've looked at the, the relocation of the house and where
[43:29] and and why they couldn't go any farther to the west
[43:33] and to the benefits of, of the current proposed location
[43:37] of the, of the pool
[43:38] and the challenges in, in attempting to move it elsewhere.
[43:42] It clearly is a unique shaped property
[43:47] with structures and
[43:49] and development that predate the current current standards
[43:54] and, and that you have to work around and, and accommodate.
[43:57] And I think they've put together the best plan that they can
[43:59] to, to work within, to work within a a unique property.
[44:04] Okay. Those conditions are not the result
[44:06] of any action taken by the applicant?
[44:08] Yes. Yes. Variance will not be contrary
[44:12] to the public interest or the policy goals.
[44:14] Objectives of Chapter 14 one
[44:15] and Quin County critical area program? Yes. Yes.
[44:18] Per the testimony on
[44:21] The, and the variance will not confer upon an
[44:26] applicant any special privilege denied to other owners
[44:29] of property or structures within the critical area.
[44:32] Yes. And there was no testimony
[44:34] of anyone being denied a similar privilege.
[44:37] I think Exhibit 10 outlined that pretty well. Yes.
[44:41] With respect to the next one,
[44:43] the variance will not adversely affect water quality
[44:45] or adversely affect or adversely impact fish, wildlife
[44:48] or plant habitats within the critical area.
[44:51] Yes. In fact, the testimony was pretty clear
[44:53] that this can only improve the circumstances.
[44:57] The variance is that mini many
[45:00] minimum deviation from the versions
[45:02] of Chapter 14 one that'll make possible the reasonable use
[45:05] of lander structures.
[45:07] I believe so, yes. They're downsizing the pool.
[45:10] It's a more modest layout in a more
[45:13] desirable location further away from the water, I think yes.
[45:18] The granting the variance will be in harmony
[45:19] with the purposes intent pur general purposes
[45:22] and intent of this Chapter 14,
[45:23] the Queens County critical area program
[45:24] and the variance shall not result in the use not permitted
[45:27] in the applicable development area
[45:29] or an increase in the applicable density limitations?
[45:34] Yes. Yes.
[45:39] Finally, under Komar you
[45:40] have to find certain things as well.
[45:43] The applicant
[45:47] Give me indulgence
[45:49] Due to special fe of the site or special conditions
[45:51] or circumstances peculiar to the structure or land.
[45:54] A literal enforcement of a local critical area program would
[45:57] result in an unwarranted hardship to the applicant. Yes.
[46:00] For the same reasons we've already
[46:01] discussed about the property.
[46:07] I am sorry. Going between three different glasses.
[46:10] So struggling on, okay, number two,
[46:14] a literal interpretation
[46:16] of the local critical area program would deprive the
[46:18] applicant of use of land
[46:20] or structure permitted to others in accordance
[46:21] with the provisions of the local critical area program?
[46:24] Yes. And that was well documented.
[46:28] Granting the variance would not confer upon the applicant
[46:30] any special privilege that will be denied
[46:31] by the local critical area program to other lands
[46:33] or structures in accordance
[46:34] with the provisions of the critical area program.
[46:37] Yes. Yes. Variance request is not based upon conditions
[46:41] or circumstances that are a
[46:42] result of actions for the
[46:42] applicant. I know it sounds repetitive,
[46:44] But Yes. Yes.
[46:45] The variance request does not arise from any conforming
[46:47] or nonconforming condition on any
[46:49] neighboring property. Yes.
[46:51] Yes. Draining
[46:52] The variance would not adversely affect water
[46:53] quality or adversely impact.
[46:55] Same fish wildlife plant habitat. Yes.
[46:57] Yes. And
[47:00] Then finally, the granting
[47:01] of the variance would be in harmony
[47:02] with the general spirit intent of critical area law,
[47:05] the regulations and the local critical area program. Yes.
[47:08] Yes.
[47:14] That is all the criteria you have
[47:15] to consider in deciding which you would like to
[47:18] Do.
[47:27] Well I do believe they purchased a property to, just
[47:30] to establish they purchased a property
[47:32] with a pool in an area where ownership of a pool is, is
[47:37] standard and,
[47:39] and part of the waterfront life part of
[47:43] enjoyment of a property such as this, we've established
[47:46] that this is the only location that makes sense
[47:49] and that they're going to great lengths to do so in a way
[47:54] that it improves the current circumstances on the site.
[47:57] I think it would be an unwarranted hardship to expect them
[48:00] to not be able to retain the use of a pool in this,
[48:04] in this approximate location
[48:05] and that they're doing all the right things to,
[48:09] to replace it in kind in a way that minimizes the impact
[48:13] with the minimal reasonable size to do so.
[48:16] So that being said,
[48:19] For motion, I'm ready for a motion.
[48:22] Ready? Yep.
[48:25] I'd like to make a motion
[48:26] for case number BOA
[48:28] 2 6 0 7 0 2 4 6
[48:32] to permit a replacement of pool, pool, patio
[48:36] and decking landing stairs, retaining walls
[48:39] and gravel driveway for a total disturbance
[48:42] of 1,837 square feet within the a hundred
[48:47] foot critical area buffer.
[48:50] Any conditionals condition,
[48:53] No conditions Any pretty much covered.
[48:57] They're in no court conditions,
[49:02] There's no Proposed submissions, there's no princip,
[49:04] it's unwarranted hardship and reasonable use
[49:07] and how to unwarranted hardship is peculiar to the property.
[49:13] I'll second that motion. All all in favor? Aye. Aye.
[49:19] Thank you. And and now declare this hearing to be adjourned.
[49:22] You will receive a formal decision as soon
[49:24] as possible. Okay.
[49:26] Thank you Very much. Now, now, thank you. Yeah.
[49:30] Oh yeah. This one needs the additional
[49:32] announcement about critical areas, right?
[49:34] I'm sorry. Yeah. So for chapter 14,
[49:36] critical area variances, your building permit must be held
[49:39] 30 days from the date of the board's
[49:40] Formal decision.
[49:41] Oh, I didn't understand what you were asking, I apologize.
[49:42] Yeah, I was presuming that Mr. Mon is aware of that Yes.
[49:47] That we have to hold 30 days from the written decision. From
[49:50] The From the appeal period. Appeal period.
[49:51] Correct. Will you accept the application?
[49:53] Just not issue the permit?
[49:57] I'm sorry? Will the county accept the application
[50:01] and that 30 day just not issue the permit
[50:03] until the 30 day is left? You
[50:04] Don't have to ask Vivian.
[50:05] I was gonna say, I don't know that I know that answer.
[50:07] Alright. I just know you have to wait for 30 days.
[50:09] I don't want answer for them.
[50:12] These are pretty Yeah
[50:14] Sir.
[50:15] I don't have that sheet. I'm like, huh? Oh, I'm sorry.
[50:17] No, you're okay. I'm literally like,
[50:18] I dunno what you're talking about.
[50:34] Anyone that's here for Miller and,
[50:36] and folks can come on up
[50:38] and we'll get going as soon
[50:39] as, as soon as everybody's ready. You
[50:41] Don't need them.
[50:42] Yeah. What you bring over.
[51:11] Just lemme know when you're ready. I'm ready. Alright.
[51:15] And now declare this hearing to be in session.
[51:17] We are here to hear case number BO A 2 6 0 7 0 2 4 5.
[51:22] Let the record show that the applicants have agreed
[51:24] to have this hearing heard by only two board members.
[51:28] Will all who wish to testify please rise
[51:29] and take the following oath.
[51:34] Do you solemnly swear or affirm under the penalties
[51:36] of perjury that the testimony you're about
[51:37] to give will be the whole truth and
[51:39] nothing but the truth? Yes.
[51:40] Yes. Ms. Maxwell of all postings
[51:43] and notification requirements have
[51:44] been satisfied for this hearing.
[51:46] Any matters relating to the jurisdiction
[51:48] of this board will now be heard.
[51:50] I say, oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, you can. It's okay.
[51:52] Let the record show there were none.
[51:55] Anyone who wishes to testify in this matter must provide
[51:57] their name and contact information with the board's clerk.
[52:00] We'll now start with the Department of Planning and Zoning.
[52:04] Yep. So the application before you is for Dudley folks
[52:07] and Jamie Miller located at 1 33 Island Creek Road,
[52:10] Centerville, Maryland Map 21, parcel 22.
[52:13] The existing parcel is 5.17 acres.
[52:16] The property is zoned countryside
[52:18] and the applicant is proposing proposing
[52:20] to construct a 420 square foot covered deck
[52:23] and stairs within the Wonder Foot Critical area buffer.
[52:27] So they have requested variance from 14 one dash 51 a buffer
[52:31] standards and requirements.
[52:34] The property is located on east of Lanzen Road,
[52:40] which is located here west
[52:41] of two 13 in access via Island Creek Road.
[52:47] So the site is currently approved
[52:49] with a single family dwelling
[52:50] and associated accessory structures,
[52:52] pier pool, outbuildings.
[52:54] The buffer is located here along the pink line.
[52:58] And the single family dwelling was constructed in the 1960s.
[53:03] Like mentioned the property is zoned countryside
[53:05] and single family dwellings are permitted use
[53:07] in the countryside district.
[53:12] The property has AE seven, I'm sorry, floodplain,
[53:16] AE elevation of seven.
[53:18] And also on the right hand side you'll see the orange
[53:21] that are title wetlands.
[53:23] This image is just a general location of the title wetlands.
[53:27] The title wetlands do not come up onto the,
[53:29] the single family dwelling.
[53:32] Also, there's no streams
[53:33] and non-Title wetlands located on site.
[53:38] So it's located ti
[53:40] entirely within the resource conservation area.
[53:42] And 27%
[53:43] of the lot is located when in the a hundred foot critical
[53:46] area buffer and 8% lot coverage is existing
[53:50] and the limitation is 15.
[53:53] So a little history about this site,
[53:56] the single family dwelling there,
[53:58] building permit 26 0 3 0 2 3 1 was to permit
[54:03] a renovation of the dwelling itself.
[54:06] During that demolition, the chimney here
[54:10] and a point
[54:11] of access in ingress was demolished in order to construct
[54:16] to put in the two remaining two doors
[54:19] and then two points of ingress and egress.
[54:22] At this point in time, they have not been constructed.
[54:26] As a result, the applicant is asking
[54:27] for a variance which will take place.
[54:29] The proposal is to be in the same location.
[54:36] So the proposal is a 420 square foot covered deck
[54:39] and stairs, and that's located here in the blue
[54:44] and is also located entirely within
[54:47] the critical area buffer.
[54:48] The applicant has proposed a 1,344 square feet of mitigation
[54:53] required at the three to one ratio for the granting
[54:55] of a variance and no existing vegetation will be removed.
[54:59] So this deck is basically occupying the same areas
[55:02] as those two sets of stairs you showed
[55:03] and the gap between them.
[55:05] Yep. So with the renovation permit, the 26 0 3 0 2 3 1,
[55:10] they propose those these two doors.
[55:12] Right. And essentially during, in relation
[55:16] to building code, you can't have a door without some point
[55:20] of ingress or egress.
[55:22] Essentially it gives a standard size landing and steps.
[55:25] So with the approval of that building permit, this is
[55:28] what they had to, to put in, in order
[55:29] for the building permit to be approved.
[55:31] But instead they, the preference is
[55:34] to have a deck there in steps.
[55:36] So it would be in the same location. Okay. As that.
[55:39] And if I've misspoke, please,
[55:40] please speak up when, when we get there,
[55:42] Great job of tying the permits together.
[55:45] All right. So in, in relation
[55:47] to the critical area standards
[55:49] and comar standards for a a critical area variance,
[55:52] there must be an unwarranted hardship or unnec unwarranted
[55:56] or unnecessary hardship that has been addressed according
[55:59] to the renderings, an existing entrance
[56:01] or exit on the, there is one existing
[56:03] on this portion of the house.
[56:05] And then there's two points of ingress
[56:08] and egress here as well.
[56:10] And then there's also ingress
[56:12] and egress, I believe on this side of the dwelling
[56:14] where there's a, a sunroom.
[56:16] So the entirety of the parcel is to be analyzed.
[56:18] The entirety of the dwelling is located in the buffer,
[56:21] therefore a covered deck
[56:22] and steps to be constructed, it would require
[56:25] that the house be located entirely outside of the buffer
[56:28] for it to be constructed without a variance.
[56:32] Those conditions are peculiar to the property involved.
[56:35] The existing single family dwelling was built in the 1960s.
[56:38] Obviously prior to critical area regulations.
[56:41] The proposed covered deck
[56:42] and cascading steps will be attached
[56:44] to the single family dwelling.
[56:45] And the property is somewhat, you'll see the shape of it,
[56:49] very kind of, it's all belong in general in nature,
[56:52] but then it has this point here.
[56:54] So therefore they have to take a hundred foot buffer off
[56:56] this side and a hundred foot buffer off this side.
[56:58] So it totally engulfs the entirety
[57:00] of the single family dwelling itself.
[57:05] And those results, those conditions are not the
[57:08] result of the applicant.
[57:09] Although there has been multiple,
[57:11] multiple building renovation permits, like I mentioned,
[57:14] the dwelling was constructed in the 1960s.
[57:18] The variance will not confer upon an applicant any special
[57:21] privilege denied to other owners.
[57:23] The 420 square foot proposed covered deck
[57:25] and steps is a modest increase in lot coverage
[57:28] and the dwelling is permitted use in the
[57:30] countryside zoning district.
[57:34] Little interpretation
[57:36] of the critical area program would deprive the
[57:38] applicant of the use.
[57:39] Like I mentioned, it is a permitted use in the single family
[57:42] dwelling, but also the Board
[57:45] of appeal should determine whether this is a reasonable use
[57:47] of property within the critical area buffer.
[57:49] Keeping in mind all the other points of ingress
[57:52] and egress within the structure itself, The granting
[57:56] of the variance would not adversely affect water quality.
[58:00] The area of the proposed deck is, is no closer
[58:03] to the mean high water line in the existing dwelling.
[58:07] Also, there's a buffer management plan
[58:08] that has been proposed that is
[58:12] that the minimum deviation necessary.
[58:15] The deck essentially is a normal improvement
[58:18] on a residential lot.
[58:19] The existing dwelling does not,
[58:21] does currently have multiple points of ingress and egress.
[58:25] The 420 square foot proposed covered porch and
[58:27] and steps is modest.
[58:28] And the board should consider, like I mentioned,
[58:30] the multiple points, multiple points of ingress and egress.
[58:35] The re basically our response from the critical area when we
[58:38] sent this application was for this variance to be granted,
[58:41] the board of appeals must find that each
[58:43] and every one of the variance standards have been met,
[58:45] including unwarranted hardship.
[58:47] Should the board find that the applicant has been met,
[58:49] these has met these standards,
[58:51] appropriate mitigation is required.
[58:54] And then in reference to staff,
[58:56] staff generally finds consistency
[58:57] with applicable laws in this case
[58:59] and does not object to the Board
[59:00] of Appeals granting the variance.
[59:03] But then if you look at Comar
[59:04] and also 14 1 66 based on the Board of Appeals, determining
[59:09] that an unwarranted hardship
[59:10] and discussing the reasonable use, if the board is inclined
[59:13] to grant it, there should be a condition placed on it.
[59:17] The applicant cannot receive a building permit
[59:19] for the proposed improvements until the,
[59:21] the buffer management plan has been approved.
[59:24] Got it. We're gonna enter planning
[59:29] and zoning staff report, P and Z number one.
[59:31] And we're gonna enter the packet
[59:32] of pre-marked applicant exhibits number one through 10.
[59:37] Those in favor of granting this
[59:38] application will now be heard.
[59:40] Please give your name and address before you start speaking.
[59:44] I'm Grant Sally with four Brothers Design
[59:46] build, architect of record.
[59:48] So we're at 4 0 0 9 Georgia Avenue, Northwest Washington, DC
[59:53] 2 0 0 1 1.
[59:56] And I'm Dudley folks along with my wife.
[59:58] I'm the homeowner of the property at 1 33 Island Creek Road,
[1:00:01] Centerville.
[1:00:03] Cool. Thank you.
[1:00:07] So just to give a little more color to this
[1:00:12] project, the, the roof, the covered portion
[1:00:16] of the deck is only about half.
[1:00:19] So it's just more like an awning.
[1:00:22] And so the deck is, the,
[1:00:24] the whole deck including the stairs is about
[1:00:26] 420 square feet.
[1:00:28] So a lot of occupancy goes from 8.1 to 8.2.
[1:00:31] It's all natural wood gap to drain.
[1:00:35] And the, the awning portion is, is logically
[1:00:37] to just provide some shelter at the windows
[1:00:39] and doors from rain
[1:00:41] and then also the summer sun as it faces southwest for
[1:00:45] a little bit of protection from the sun, from the interior.
[1:00:49] So the, just a little bit
[1:00:50] of a background on the renovation project
[1:00:51] that precedes this application.
[1:00:54] The, the roof was low and it was a dark space.
[1:00:56] There was a redundant, redundant spaces within the house.
[1:00:59] So we did our part to, to make it brighter and lighter.
[1:01:02] We raised the roof. Currently the, there is no roof on,
[1:01:06] I should say, there's no finished roof on the, on the house
[1:01:09] because we're waiting for this hopeful approval
[1:01:13] because it's, it's proposed to be standing sea metal, so we,
[1:01:16] one can't go in sequence without the other.
[1:01:19] It has to be done all at once.
[1:01:20] So it's currently covered in ice and water shield.
[1:01:23] The, as as staff reported, the entire house is within the,
[1:01:27] the buffer zone and,
[1:01:28] and predates all the projects, predate the owner.
[1:01:32] So in that rendering that you guys saw
[1:01:35] with the highlighted stairs, actually one
[1:01:37] of those doors is existing
[1:01:39] and so we just, we added four more windows in and a door,
[1:01:42] and then the awning will come out
[1:01:44] and just nest within that C shape.
[1:01:47] I'm not sure if you have any renderings of the proposed,
[1:01:50] I'm not sure if it matters,
[1:01:51] but it's, it's, it's a nice little project and, and,
[1:01:54] and logically fills in that gap there.
[1:01:56] So we're connecting the landings
[1:01:58] and providing a little bit of ability for the,
[1:02:03] for the homeowner to enjoy their quote unquote front yard
[1:02:08] with this, with this deck.
[1:02:10] So it's, we're just bringing a little bit of beauty
[1:02:12] to the functional aspects of these stairs and landings.
[1:02:16] I think I've covered most of, of
[1:02:22] any additional information that the narratives don't say,
[1:02:24] but I'm happy to go into any more detail you need.
[1:02:27] I think the challenge that, that we need to work
[1:02:29] through here is, is showing the, the need
[1:02:33] and the hardship Sure.
[1:02:35] As opposed to the appearance benefits
[1:02:40] and you know that it needs to be,
[1:02:43] the hardship can't be something that you've created,
[1:02:45] so it can't be shading windows that weren't there
[1:02:48] before you bought the house.
[1:02:49] Sure. So,
[1:02:53] Well, I would say that the, the hardship is that the,
[1:02:55] the owner can make no improvements
[1:02:57] to their house whatsoever, as everything is,
[1:02:59] is in the, the buffer zone.
[1:03:02] We, I have an existing picture
[1:03:04] of the house if you'd like to see it.
[1:03:05] So there is this landing there
[1:03:06] and it just creates, you know, there, there, there's no way
[1:03:09] for them to be used
[1:03:11] or enjoy that part of the house and, and yard.
[1:03:14] It's just kind of collecting weeds and everything.
[1:03:17] So we're improving, it's a wooded lot,
[1:03:20] we're improving the entire area with,
[1:03:24] with those additional plantings along the driveway.
[1:03:27] There's really no disruption to,
[1:03:30] to the environment here in this, there's very,
[1:03:34] very few foundations
[1:03:35] and again, I, I think the hardship is just
[1:03:38] having an awkward circulation to, and,
[1:03:41] and from this south side of the house in terms
[1:03:46] of moving things in and out on such a small landing.
[1:03:50] Now we have two of them approved by the county,
[1:03:53] and we'd like to consolidate that again for a more practical
[1:03:58] use and presentation of the house.
[1:04:10] Do you have any other
[1:04:14] Maybe that We did build the pool
[1:04:18] and outside the buffer zone,
[1:04:21] but it is creates a place
[1:04:24] where you can see the pool much better
[1:04:28] and it would be a hardship, I guess, to
[1:04:34] not be able to see the pool very well
[1:04:39] from safety point of view.
[1:04:40] And how long ago did you put the pool in?
[1:04:43] Oh man, I think it was like five years ago. Okay.
[1:04:49] And so until you started this project, you couldn't,
[1:04:51] you couldn't reasonably see the pool from the house?
[1:04:55] Not very well. I mean, this will,
[1:04:57] this would give us a much better view of it, a much better
[1:05:02] a, a place to be where you can watch kids in the pool.
[1:05:06] Since you mentioned our introduction of windows,
[1:05:08] can I show you the original?
[1:05:10] Yeah, but anything you give us, we have
[1:05:12] to keep as an exhibit.
[1:05:14] That's fine. Yeah. So there was a very large masonry,
[1:05:19] chimney, unsafe to use and,
[1:05:22] and very limited windows in that space.
[1:05:25] And that's the existing sliding door.
[1:05:27] So we're going to, we're gonna mark this
[1:05:28] as applicant's exhibit 11.
[1:05:30] 11.
[1:05:37] Yeah. I, I don't question the improvement in terms
[1:05:42] of the how, the, how this will look.
[1:05:44] We're, we're just trying to suss out a little bit of, of
[1:05:48] how this would be a, a need
[1:05:49] and a hardship in order
[1:05:50] to meet the criteria we have to rule on.
[1:05:52] So
[1:05:55] Again, the, the points of entry, the main point
[1:05:57] of entry mentioned where there's
[1:05:59] that little, little bump out.
[1:06:01] It is, is very small.
[1:06:03] It, it enters directly into the kitchen
[1:06:05] and so all of the other living spaces are, are hard
[1:06:09] to access through that one point of entry.
[1:06:12] So this is not only providing the, the life safety aspects
[1:06:16] to the, to the doors that are there,
[1:06:17] but also genuinely Im improves the coming and going and,
[1:06:22] and I foresee this being a, a primary entrance as opposed to
[1:06:26] that, that little
[1:06:28] Porch.
[1:06:29] That was gonna be my my my next question.
[1:06:30] This is going to be the new primary entry into
[1:06:36] I see it.
[1:06:38] I saw, yeah, I think it,
[1:06:40] I think it'll look great. I'm just trying to,
[1:06:42] I think you done, I think we're good. Okay. The
[1:06:45] Safety aspect helped.
[1:06:46] Okay.
[1:06:49] Okay, good.
[1:06:54] Those persons opposing the granting
[1:06:55] of this application may now testify.
[1:06:59] Apparently there's no one, we do not need
[1:07:03] to go into executive session.
[1:07:05] No.
[1:07:07] Okay. So I guess we can listen to the criteria
[1:07:11] and elaborate as we go, as we did before. Sounds good.
[1:07:14] All right. So under 14 1 6, 6, gosh, 6, 6, 6.
[1:07:18] You have to find that a lit literal
[1:07:20] and every single time, by the way,
[1:07:21] I followed the word literal.
[1:07:23] A literal enforcement of this chapter 14 one would result in
[1:07:26] unnecessary hardship as the result of specified conditions,
[1:07:29] which hardship is not shared by owners
[1:07:30] of other property in the same development area.
[1:07:34] Yes. Yes.
[1:07:38] And I think the testimony was part of
[1:07:40] that reasoning being the entirety of the buffer, correct?
[1:07:43] Yeah, absolutely. The fact that the entire,
[1:07:45] that the entire residence was within the buffer
[1:07:49] and that this is, you know, they're adding this new entryway
[1:07:52] for, for safety reasons
[1:07:53] and this would also be a necessary
[1:07:58] point to, to view their property
[1:08:00] and the pool for, for Ober observing people
[1:08:05] that are on their property and using
[1:08:06] the pool for safety reasons.
[1:08:07] I think there's a number of rea number of
[1:08:11] factors on the record in that document why this is,
[1:08:14] this entryway was approved
[1:08:16] and why this makes the entryway safer
[1:08:18] and more usable. Location.
[1:08:20] The conditions are PE peculiar to the property involved.
[1:08:24] Yes, yes. The conditions are not the result
[1:08:26] of any take action taken by the applicant. Yes.
[1:08:29] Yes. Variance will not be contrary
[1:08:31] to the public interest of the policy equals
[1:08:33] and objectives of the Chapter 14 one
[1:08:34] and the county critical area program.
[1:08:37] Yes. And that's as testified to by
[1:08:43] staff and by the applicants.
[1:08:45] The variance will not confer upon an applicant any special
[1:08:47] privilege denied to other owners of lake property
[1:08:49] or structures within the critical area.
[1:08:50] Yes, yes. There was no testimony otherwise.
[1:08:54] The variance will not adversely affect water quality
[1:08:55] or adversely impact fish, wildlife,
[1:08:57] or plant habitats within the critical area.
[1:09:00] Yes. That was testified to by staff
[1:09:02] Variance is the mini minimum deviation for the provisions
[1:09:04] of this chapter 41 that will make possible the reasonable
[1:09:06] use of lander structures.
[1:09:08] Yes. Yeah. It's a very modest effort to make
[1:09:11] that new entryway useful.
[1:09:13] Granting the variance will be in harmony
[1:09:15] with the general purposes and intent of chapter 14 one
[1:09:17] and the Queen Annes County critical area program.
[1:09:19] And the variance shall not result in a use not permitted in
[1:09:21] the applicable development area
[1:09:23] or an increase in the applicable density limitations?
[1:09:25] Yes. Yes. Okay.
[1:09:27] In addition to that, the comar standards, again,
[1:09:29] they're a little repetitive, but we have to go through them
[1:09:35] due to special feature to the site or special conditions
[1:09:37] or circumstances
[1:09:38] peculiar to the applicant flander structure.
[1:09:39] A literal enforcement of the local critical area program
[1:09:42] would result in unwanted hard hardship to the applicant.
[1:09:45] Yes. Yes. For the same reasons we've already addressed.
[1:09:47] With this house being entirely within the critical area, it
[1:09:51] severely handicaps their ability to
[1:09:54] construct this new entryway.
[1:09:55] A literal interpretation of the local critical area
[1:09:57] program would deprive the applicant of the use of land
[1:09:59] or structure permitted to others in accordance
[1:10:01] with the provisions of the local critical area
[1:10:03] program. Yes.
[1:10:04] Yes. Grants, the granting
[1:10:06] of the variance would not confer upon the applicant any
[1:10:08] special privilege that would be denied
[1:10:10] by the local critical area program to other lands
[1:10:12] or structures in accordance with the provisions
[1:10:14] of the local critical area program. Yes.
[1:10:15] Yes. Variances request is not based upon conditions
[1:10:18] or circumstances that are a result
[1:10:19] of actions by the applicant. Yes.
[1:10:21] Yes. The variance request is not arise from any
[1:10:24] conforming or non-conforming condition on
[1:10:26] any neighboring property.
[1:10:28] Yes. Graining, the variance would not adversely affect,
[1:10:30] and again, I know it's repetitive water quality
[1:10:32] or adversely impact fish, wildlife,
[1:10:34] or plant habitat within the local critical area.
[1:10:36] Yes. Yes. Graining, the variance would be in harmony
[1:10:39] with the general spirit and intent
[1:10:40] of the critical area law regulations in the subtitle
[1:10:42] and local CRI critical area program.
[1:10:45] Yes. Yes. That's it.
[1:10:50] Good. I think we're good. Ready for a motion?
[1:10:52] Ready For a motion? I'd like to make a motion
[1:10:54] for case number BO A
[1:10:56] 2 6 0 7 0 2 4 5
[1:11:01] A variance you construct a 420
[1:11:06] foot square foot covered deck
[1:11:09] and stairs within the a hundred foot critical area buffer
[1:11:12] conditions the applicant cannot receive building permit
[1:11:16] for the proposed improvements
[1:11:17] until the buffer management plan in accordance with COMAR.
[1:11:22] 27 0 1 9 1 3 has been approved by Queen Anns County.
[1:11:28] Second that all in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you.
[1:11:32] And now declare this hearing to be adjourned.
[1:11:35] You will receive a formal decision as soon as possible.
[1:11:37] And note, as we said last hearing for chapter 14,
[1:11:40] critical area Variances, your building permit must be held
[1:11:42] 30 days from the date of our formal decision.
[1:11:45] Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.