BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF QUEEN ANNE'SCOUNTY  In the matter ofApplication by The 1731 Partners Trust Variance  Casel No. BOA-23-11-0167  FINALI DECISION OF THE BOARD  Introduction  The Queen Anne's County Board of Appeals (the "Board") held a meeting on March 20, 2024 at 5:00 p.m. to consider Case No. BOA-23-11-0167 for a variance application filed by The 1731 Partners Trust (hereinafter the "Applicant"). The Board members present were Chairman, Howard Dean, and Board Members Craig W. McGinnes and Michael Lesniowski.  At the beginning of the hearing, the Board established that all requirements were met governing the filing ofthe variance application and proper notice ofthe March 20th public hearing. Board Chairman Dean administered the oath to all who wished to testify on the application,  including the Applicant.  Applicant's Request  The Applicant iss seeking a variance to the provision of $ 14:1-51.A oft the Code ofPublic Local Laws of Queen Anne's County (the "Code"), to disturb 347 square feet within the 100-foot Critical Area Buffer (the "100-foot Buffer") to construct wooden decks and stairs for an elevated dwelling at property located at 615 Lands End Road, Centreville, Maryland 21617 (hereinafter the "Property"). The Applicant seeks to remove 103 square feet of existing lot coverage comprised of existing steps, concrete pads and apron, and a fireplace, and to replace those components with a new elevated front deck and steps, comprised of 302 square feet, and a new elevated waterside deck, comprised of45 square feet. The proposed new decks are located within the 100-foot Buffer. The Applicant submitted Building Permit Application #BR23-08-0614 to construct the proposed decks on the existing structure within the 100-foot Buffer on the Property. Upon review of the Building Permit, the Zoning Inspector denied the Permit to construct new development    The 1731 Partners Trust 615 Lands End Road Variance - Structure in the Buffer p.2  within the 100-foot Buffer. Pursuant to $ 14:1-51.A of the Code, new development or  redevelopment are not permitted within the 100-foot Buffer.  Applicable Provisions oft the Code  The standards the Board must apply to the Applicant's variance request from the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Act are set forth in S 14:1-66 of the Code. To grant the requested  variance, the Board must find as follows:  1.  Literal enforcement of this Chapter 14:1 would result in unnecessary hardship as the result of specified conditions, which hardship is not shared by owners of other property  ini the same development area;  2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.  Those conditions are peculiar to the property involved;  Those conditions are not the result of any action taken by the applicant; The variance will not be contrary to the public interest or the policies, goals and objectives of this Chapter 14:1 and the Queen Anne's County Critical Area Program; The variance will not confer upon an applicant any special privilege denied to other The variance will not adversely affect water quality or adversely impact fish, The variance is the minimum deviation from the provisions of this Chapter 14:1 The granting oft the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent ofthis Chapter 14:1 and the Queen Anne's County Critical Area Program and the variance shall not result in a use not permitted in the applicable development area or an increase in In addition, the provisions of COMAR 27.01.12.04 require the Board to make certain written findings not addressed in $ 14:1-66 of the Code. These additional written findings, set forth in  owners oflike property and/or structures within the critical area;  wildlife, or plant habitats within the critical area;  that will make possible the reasonable use ofland or structures; and  the applicable density limitations.  COMAR 27.01.12.04, are as follows:  1.  In accordance with Natural Resources Article, 8-1808(d)3)0), Annotated Code of Maryland, an applicant has overcome the presumption that the specific development activity for which the variance is required does not conform with the general intent oft the  local jurisdictions program;    The 1731 Partners Trust 615 Lands End Road Variance Structure in thel Buffer p.3  2.  Due to special features ofthe site or special conditions or circumstances peculiar to the applicants land or structure, a literal enforcement of the local Critical Area program  would result in an unwarranted hardship to the applicant;  3.  A literal interpretation of the local Critical Area program would deprive the applicant of a use of land or a structure permitted to others in accordance with the  provisions of the local Critical Area program;  4.  The granting of the variance would not confer upon the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by the local Critical Area program to other lands or structures in accordance with the provisions oft the local Critical Area program;  5.  The variance request is not based upon conditions or circumstances that are the The variance request does not arise from any conforming or nonconforming  result ofactions by the appliçant;  6.  condition on any neighboring property;  7. The granting oft the variance would not adversely affect water quality or adversely impact fish, wildlife, or plant habitat within the jurisdictions local Critical Area; and  8.  The granting oft the variance would be inl harmony with the general spirit and intent ofthe Critical Areal law, the regulations in this subtitle, and the local Critical Area program. Property Description and Department of] Planning & Zoning Recommendations Stephanie Jones, Principal Planner with the Department of Planning & Zoning presented the staff report. Ms. Jones identified the Property as 615 Lands End Road, Centreville. The Property is further identified as Map 21, Parcel 19, Lot 1. The Property is located in the Countryside (CS) Zoning District and has a Critical Area designation of Resource Conservation Area (RCA).Specificaly, the Property is 76.859. acres with 30.913 acres located within the Critical  Area and 45.946 acres located outside oft the Critical Area.  There is an existing dwelling on the Property consisting of 545 square feet, 14 square feet ofsteps, and 86 square feet ofaccompanying concrete pads and apron, resulting in 645 square feet of lot coverage within the 100-foot Buffer. Ms. Jones advised that the Applicant is proposing to    The 1731 Partners Trust 615 Lands End Road Variance Structure in thel Buffer p.4  remove 103 square feet of lot coverage within the Buffer as part of the project. Specifically, the Applicant proposes to remove an existing fireplace, steps, and accompanying concrete pads and apron. Upon removal of the proposed lot coverage, 542 square feet of lot coverage will remain in the Buffer. The existing concrete pad on the Property is 12.8 feet from mean high water and the  existing dwelling is 13.5 feet from mean high water.  The Property is being used for agricultural purposes and consists of multiple wetlands. Given the wetlands, the Property has an expanded Buffer. The existing dwelling on the Property was constructed in 1942 and is within the regulated floodplain with a base flood elevation of 6  feet.  Then, Ms. Jones provided an overview of prior approvals on the Property. In June, 2023, the Applicant received BR #23-02-0084 to elevate the structure out oft the floodplain. Specifically, the permit allows the Applicant to construct two points of ingress and egress to the elevated structure as required by the International Building Code which was adopted by the County. The Applicant now seeks to construct a front deck and steps totaling 302 square feet and a waterside deck with no steps totaling 45 square feet. The proposed waterside deck will be 10.2 feet from mean high tide. Ms. Jones advised that the proposed deck will be 2.61 feet closer to mean high water  than the existing structure.  Ms. Jones said that the proposed decks will not be counted as lot coverage per the Code because water will be able to pass freely through the decking. However, the variance is required due to the disturbance of the Buffer. The Buffer consists of 6.969 acres of the Property. She said the proposed buffer management plan includes 1,200 square feet of mitigation to address the 347 square feet of disturbance at the applicable 3:1 ratio in accordance with COMAR 27.01.09.01-2. She suggested the Applicant amend their plan to include a mix of species and not a monoculture  in case of disease.  The file included al letter from Jonathan Coplin, Natural Resource Planner with the Critical Area Commission, regarding the application. The letter states that the proposed work includes removing existing 103 square feet ofconcrete pads and stairs, installing 347 square feet of slotted decks and stairs, and raising the Property 9 feet on its existing footprint. It states that the Property    The 1731 Partners Trust 615 Lands End Road Variance - Structure int the Buffer p.5  has an allowable lot coverage limit of 201,986 square feet with the proposed work increasing the lot coverage of the site to a total of 542 square feet. Mr. Coplin advised that the Critical Area  Commission is not opposed to the application.  Toconclude, Ms. Jones reiterated that the existing dwelling is 545 square feet. She said the Applicant seeks to remove 103 square feet of lot coverage. The Applicant seeks to disturb 347 square feet by constructing the deck and stairs. She added that the proposed decks are more than half the size of existing dwelling but said that decks are common on waterfront property and dwellings in general. Then, Ms. Jones recommended that the Board discuss the variance request  and the applicable criteria for granting said request.  Applicant's Presentation  The Applicant was represented by Ryan Showalter, Esquire of McAllister, Detar, Showalter, and Walker, LLC. Mr. Showalter said the. Applicant seeks to construct an elevated front deck and steps and an elevated waterside deck, totaling 347 square feet. He said the existing dwelling will remain 141 feet from mean high water and that most oft the project is located landward oft the existing dwelling. The nearest part oft the new deck will be 2.61 feet closer to mean high water than the closest point of the existing concrete pad which the Applicant seeks to remove.  The existing house on the Property was constructed in the 1940s. He admitted that there are other houses in Queen Anne's County that were constructed earlier than the 1940s but advised the Board that they are to determine whether there are circumstances on the Property that are peculiar to the Property. To support peculiarity, he said that there is a house on the Property that was constructed prior to the adoption of County zoning, it was constructed in close proximity to the shoreline, and the Applicant is seeking to elevate the house to comply with floodplain standards. He said that the presence ofthe house in the Buffer is a hardship that is] peculiar and not  shared by others generally.  Christopher Frank, AIA with Hammond Wilson, addressed a question from the Board and said that the septic on the Property is located outside of the Buffer. Then, he explained the lot coverage that existed on the Property within the Buffer that was removed. Specifically, the Applicant removed a chimney and brick patio from the Buffer. Then, the Applicant will elevate    The 1731 Partners Trust 615 Lands End Road Variance = Structure in the Buffer p.6  the house to allowi infiltration to occur under the house. He said that the house was already elevated  and on pillars pursuant to a previously issued building permit.  Mr. Showalter said the Applicant is proposing 1,200 square feet of mitigation, which is more than the required amount. In addition, the proposed use will result in a net decrease of lot  coverage and an improved septic system which is located outside oft the Buffer.  Mr. McGinnes asked whether it would be feasible to relocate the house outside of the Buffer. Mr. Frank said that relocating the house would cause more disturbance to the Buffer. Specifically, it would involve placing the house on a series of movable piers and dragging it out oft the Buffer which would disturb 4-5 times the area oft the house. He said the least impactful way  to reduce lot coverage in the Buffer is to raise the house on piers.  Mr. Frank said that the house had 3 doors but the Applicant abandoned one when the house was raised to avoid further disturbance to the Buffer. With the abandoned door, the Applicant did not propose a wraparound deck on the waterfront side of the house. However, the Applicant is proposing 45 square feet of elevated waterside deck to provide some waterfront enjoyment. The waterside deck also squares off the house by filling in a corner offloor area where therei isc currently a gap due to removal of a chimney and patio. Mr. Frank said that the Applicant is seeking to construct the smaller deck over top of an area where lot coverage was removed.  Mr. Showalter said that the decks allow some at-grade access and outdoor living. The waterside deck is small and will only accommodate a chair. The larger deck is still relatively small and will only accommodate a small seating area and a grill. Mr. Showalter said that there's an environmental benefit by moving the seating area and grill offoft the ground and onto the deck. He explained that ifthe Applicant did not have the decks, they would utilize ground space for the seats  and grill which would compact the area in the Buffer.  Related to the size of the deck, Mr. Showalter said that the deck is large compared to the house but that the house is very small. He also said that the deck is the minimal size necessary to  accommodate safe navigation and minimal outdoor living space.  Testimony from the Public  After the Applicant presented his case, Chairman Dean asked ifany members of the public  wished to testify. No members oft the public testified.    The 1731 Partners Trust 615 Lands End Road Variance - Structure in the Buffer p.7  Findings and Conclusions of the Board  The Board finds the testimony and application provided by the Applicant credible and persuasive. The Board concludes that the evidence justifies approval of the requested variance. Based on the evidence presented, and duly considering the factors set forth in $ 14:1-66 of the Code and COMAR 27.01.12.04, the Board specifically finds and concludes as follows:  1. Int this case, the Board finds that the decks and stairs are ar reasonable and significant  use ofa waterfront property within the community;  2. 3. 4. objectives oft the Code; 5. specified conditions; 6. property; 7. habitat; 8. 9.  A literal enforcement of the Code would result in unnecessary hardship as ai result  ofspecific conditions;  The Applicant received prior approval to raise the house;  The variance will not be contrary to the public interest or the policies, goals and The house is located within the Buffer and was constructed in 1942 which are The variance will not confer any special privilege denied to other owners of like The variance will not adversely affect water quality ori impact fish, wildlife, or plant  The size oft the decks is relatively modest;  Moving the house would result in more disturbance to the Buffer;  10. Special features exist on the site that are peculiar to the Applicant's Property and a 11. The disturbance to the Buffer will permit modest decks that provide safe ingress and egress and reasonable outdoor area to enjoy outdoor living without disturbing the 12. Utilizing outdoor living space is a reasonable and significant use oftl the Property; 13. The variance requested is the minimum deviation from the provisions of Chapter  literal enforcement of the Code would result in unwarranted hardship;  Buffer;  14:1 to allow for the reasonable use of the Property;    The 1731 Partners Trust 615 Lands End Road Variance Structure in the Buffer p.8  14. The Applicant has overcome the presumption that the decks in the Buffer do not conform with the general intent of the Queen Anne's County Critical Area Program; 15. Due to special features on the site, a literal enforcement of the local Critical Area 16. The variance will not confer upon the Applicant any special privilege denied to other owners of like property and/or structures within the critical area as allowing a 17. The Applicant will meet the applicable lot coverage and has undertaken work to  Program would result in an unwarranted hardship to the. Applicant;  variance would match the existing condition of adjacent neighbors;  remove existing lot coverage in the Buffer.  Decision  Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, by a vote of three in favor and none A variance from the provisions ofs 14:1-51.A to disturb 347 square feet within the 100ft. Critical Area Buffer to construct wooden decks and stairs for an elevated house on the Property,  opposed, the Board grants to the Applicant:  subject to the following conditions:  1. The Applicant revise their mitigation plan to include a mix of cultivars instead ofa  monoculture.    The 1731 Partners Trust 615 Lands End Road Variance - Structure int the Buffer p.9  ORDER  For the reasons set forth in the foregoing Opinion, it is this 4th day ofJune, 2024, ordered that the variance requested for The 1731 Partners Trust, in Case No. BOA-23-11-0167,  be granted, subject to the conditions set forth ini the Opinion.  BhCrela Howard A. Dean, Chairman  CW.MEL Craig W. McGinnes, Vice-Chairman  Michael A. Lesniowski, Member    The 1731 Partners Trust 615 Lands End Road Variance - Structure in the Buffer p.10  State of Maryland, County of Queen Anne's:  IHEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy ofthe Opinion and Order oft the Board of Appeals of Queen Anne's County in Case No. BOA-23-11-0167. for The 1731 Partners Trust, which Opinion and Order resulted from a public hearing conducted by the Board of Appeals on March 20, 2024 and that the minutes and a recording oft the March 20, 2024  meeting are filed in the office of Board of Appeals.  Certified this 4th day ofJune, 2024 by:  fotly cai Cathy Maxwell Clerk to the Board of Appeals    BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY  In the matter ofApplication by R.B. Baker & Sons, Inc. for Conditional Use  Case No. BOA-22-03-0112  FINALDECISION OF THE BOARD  Introduction  The Queen Anne's County Board of Appeals (the "Board") held a meeting on March 20, 2024at5 5:15 p.m. to consider Case No. BOA-22-03-0112 for conditional use approval fora2 27.301- acre major extraction operation located at 311 Cherry Lane, near Queenstown, in the 5th Election District (the "Property") filed by R.B. Baker & Sons, Inc. (the Applicant"). The Board members present were Board Chairman, Howard Dean, and Board Members Craig W. McGinnes and  Michael Lesniowski.  At the beginning of the hearing, the Board established that all requirements were met governing the filing of the conditional use application, and proper notice of the March 20th public hearing. Board Chairman, Howard Dean, administered the oath to all who wished to testify on the  application, including the Applicant.  Applicant's Request  The Applicant is seeking conditional use approval pursuant to the provisions of $ 18:1- 14.C.(7) and $ 18:1-95.Eofthe Code ofPublic Local Laws of Queen Anne's County (the "Code"), to operate a 27.301-acre major extraction operation at the Property. Major extraction is permitted asaconditional use in the Agricultural zoning district pursuant to $ 18:1-14.C.(7) oft the Code.  Applicable Provisions oft the Code  The standards the Board must apply to the Applicant'sr request for a conditional use are set forth in $ 18:1-94 of the Code. To approve the conditional use, the Board must find as follows:  1.  The proposed use at the proposed location shall be consistent with  the general purpose, goals, objectives, and standards of the Comprehensive Plan,    R.B. Baker & Sons, Inc. 311 Cherry Lane Conditional Use - Major Extraction p.2  this Chapter 18:1, or any other plan, program, map, or ordinance adopted, or under  consideration pursuant to official notice, by the County.  2.  The proposed use at the proposed location will not result in a  substantial or undue adverse impacts on adjacent property, the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, parking, public improvements, public sites or rights-of-way, or other matters affecting the public health, safety, and general  welfare. 3.  The proposed use at the proposed location will be adequately served  by, and will not impose an undue burden on, any of the required improvements referred to in this Chapter 18:1, Part7. Where any such improvements, facilities, utilities, or services are not available or adequate to service the proposed use at the proposed location, the applicant shall, as part ofthe application and as a condition ofa approval oft the conditional use, be responsible for establishing ability, willingness, and binding commitment to provide such improvements, facilities, utilities, and services in sufficient time and in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, this Chapter 18:1, and other plans,  programs, maps, and ordinançes adopted by the County.  In addition, $ 18:1-123.B. requires the Board to make the following findings to approve a  conditional use:  1. Chapter 18:1 exist; 2. 3.  The conditions concerning that conditional use as detailed in this The conditional use conforms to the Comprehensive Plan; and The conditional use is compatible with the existing neighborhood.  Last, pursuant to Maryland Annotated Code, Land Use Article $1-303, the Board must include in its evaluation of the Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to the above-cited section, certain consistency findings. The Board's approval of a conditional use must further, and not be contrary to, the  following items in the Queen Anne's County Comprehensive Plan:  1. 2. 3. 4.  Policies;  Timing oft the implementation ofthe plan;  Timing of development; Timing of rezoning;    R.B. Baker & Sons, Inc. 311 Cherry Lane Conditional Use - Major Extraction p.3  5. 6. 7.  Development patterns; Land uses; and Densities or intensities.  Property Description and Department of Planning & Zoning Recommendations Steven Johnson, Planner with the Department of Planning & Zoning, presented his staff report. Mr. Johnson described the Property and its location. He identified the Property as located north east of Queenstown at Tax Map 51, Parcel 7. More specifically, he said the Property totals 115.514 acres and is located at 311 Cherry Lane at the intersection of Cherry Lane and US 301. He said the Applicant is proposing a 27.301-acre major extraction in the Agricultural zoning district. He provided an aerial photograph of the Property to the Board and identified the location of the proposed major extraction operation. The Property is zoned Agricultural and Suburban Industrial. The Applicant seeks to conduct the major extraction within the Agricultural zoning  district.  Mr. Johnson said that the Applicant will remove extracted material from the Property and haul it to ai rubble fill owned by the Applicant where it will be utilized for cover. He said the field on the Property is currently used in agricultural production. The Applicant's use meets required setbacks. The LOD totals 27.301 acres and the mining area totals 21.751 acres. The Applicant is proposing an impervious area of0.915 acres. In addition, the Applicant is proposing to construct a22' wide haul road to provide access from Andrews Lane and a 10 wide grass access road around the extraction area. The Applicant will remove materials by utilizing a trucking schedule cycle consisting of 10 trucks per day for 2 years. The Applicant will then utilize 50 trucks per day for1 year. The Applicant will complete 5 cycles. At the completion of the 16.1-year operation, the Applicant will have removed 1,238,959 cubic yards of material from the Property. Mr. Johnson said that the life of the operation may be up to 25 years if the removal rate is less than proposed  by the trucking schedule cycle.  Mr. Johnson said the Applicant will plant an 8' tall landscaping berm along US 301. The berm will be 50' wide along US 301 until it reaches parcel 8 where the berm will transition to 25' wide. He showed the Board aj photograph depicting the proposed berm. He said the 50' wide berm    R.B. Baker & Sons, Inc. 311 Cherry Lane Conditional Use - Major Extraction p.4  will be made up of 6'-7 tall red cedar trees and 7 -8 tall loblolly pines. The berm will also be  used to attenuate noise generated from the project.  Then, Mr. Johnson explained the environmental features on site. He said that there is a stream and stream buffer on the Property. The Applicant proposes to disturb 0.05 acres, or 0.2%, of the existing stream buffer for the construction of the access road. Mr. Johnson explained that the Applicant is permitted to disturb up to 20%0 ofthe stream buffer. In addition, non-tidal wetlands and ai non-tidal buffer exist on the Property but the Applicant is not proposing disturbance to either. He said there are 58.80 acres of woodlands on-site and that the Applicant proposed to clear 2.04 acres. He clarified that the project is exempt from forest conservation pursuant to $ 18:2-4.B(10) of the Code. He said that there are no state or federal threatened or endangered plant or animal species on the Property which was confirmed by DNR. However, the forested area does contain a Forest Interior Dwelling Bird habitat which will require further review by DNR ifthere is a change  to the LOD.  Mr. Johnson advised the Board of the proposed hours of operation, which were included in the Applicant's concept plan and the staff report. He advised that the proposed hours of operation are consistent with other mines around the County. He added that the Applicant will enter into al Host Community Agreement with the County whereby the Applicant will provide the County with up to 500 tons of material per year at no cost for the lifetime of the operation. The  County will use the material for public works projects.  The Applicant provided as sound study from Vibra-Tech which was completed in 2022. The study concluded that noise generated from the use will not exceed residential noise limitations. However, he explained that equipment for the use cannot operate withinar red-shaded area depicted on the site plan and that an excavator with a 30' reach will be used. Then, Mr. Johnson explained the haul route. He: said the Applicant will utilize Andrews Lane, Cherry Lane, US301, Greenspring Road, MD Route 18 (4-H Park Road), and John Brown Road, and trucks will follow the approved route. The Department ofPublic Worksi is requiringas 5100,000maintenance bond fori maintenance of Cherry Lane due to projected repaving caused by the use. In addition, the State Highway Administration is requiring the. Applicant to install and maintain thermoplastic pavement markings to provide adequate acceleration and deceleration lanes. Further, the Applicant is required to    R.B. Baker & Sons, Inc. 311 Cherry Lane Conditional Use - Major Extraction p.5 areas.  provide a written report inspection of the haul route after 10 years and repair any deteriorated  When the use is complete, the end use will be a 16.961-acre pond.  Applicant's Presentation  Ryan Showalter, Esquire, presented the application. He said that the Applicant received favorable recommendations from all commenting agencies and departments. Then, he introduced Sean Callahan, President ofLane Engineering, LLC. Mr. Callahan explained the proposed project. He said the Applicant proposes to operate a 25.49-acre mining/borrow pit project to provide cap and cover for an existing rubble fill operation. The Applicant will excavate on the Property and deliver the material to a property owned by the Applicant that is relatively close to the Property. The. Applicant will remove material using 101 trucks per day for 2 years and then 501 trucks per day for 1-year, which cycle will repeat 51 times. The Applicant will construct ai new: 22' wide haul road  that will allow access to the proposed operation from Andrews Lane.  The Applicant will exit the Property using Andrews Lane. The Applicant will then turn left onto Cherry Lane, right onto US 301 where trucks will utilize an extended aceleration-deceleration lane, turn right onto Greenspring Road, continue onto 4-H Park Road where trucks will deliver material to another site owned by the Applicant. The trucks will then return to the Property using a clockwise travel pattern. Mr. Callahan explained that the State Highway Administration ("SHA") is requiring the Applicant to extend deceleration and acceleration lanes on US 301 by installing thermoplastic pavement markings. Mr. Callahan said the Applicant is also required to post a $98,000 landscape bond and explained the berm.  Trey Porter, Queen Anne's County Department of Public Works, made comments about the work required by SHA and traffic pattern. Mr. Callahan commented that the project is small  compared to similar extraction projects in the County.  Then, Mr. Showalter introduced Jonathan Ferdinand, Sound and Vibration Specialist, Vibra-Tech Engineers, Inc. Mr. Ferdinand conducted. ai noise assessment oft the proposed operation to confirm compliance with the Code. He said he received al list oft the proposed project equipment to be utilized on site and conducted noise modeling toj project the estimated maximum noise levels from each piece of proposed equipment. He said that all property line areas will meet the 65dBA    R.B. Baker & Sons, Inc. 311 Cherry Lane Conditional Use Major Extraction p.6  residential noise limit at the Property with exception of a property line area along US 301. The  Applicant will utilize excavation and a berm to meet the required dBA.  Mr. Dean asked ift the berm would bei irrigated. The Applicant responded that the trees will  bei irrigated until they can manage without irrigation.  Testimony from the Public  After the Applicant presented his case, Chairman Dean asked ifany members oft the public  wished to testify. No members of the public testified.  Findings and Conclusions of the Board  The Board finds the testimony and application provided by the Applicant credible and persuasive. The Board concludes that the evidence justifies approval oft the conditional use request. Based on the evidence presented, and duly considering the applicable factors from the Queen  Anne's County Code, the Board specifically finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Applicant has met the criteria and conditions pursuant to $ 18:1-95.E. specifically as it relates to supporting inclusion of mineral resources.  2. The application is consistent with the 2022 Queen Anne's County Comprehensive Plan,  3. The project supports local and regional development.  4. The area subject to the conditional use application is mostly surrounded by agricultural properties and highway, and will have no adverse impact on neighboring residential 5. The traffic created by the use will not be any more intense than current conditions.  properties.  6. Public improvements are: not required for the conditional use.  7. The Property does not need water or sewer.  8. An major extraction operation is a permitted conditional use on the Property. 9. The Applicant submitted the required plans, applications, and agreements to the County  for the conditional use.  10. The Applicant meets the noise requirements.    R.B. Baker & Sons, Inc. 311 Cherry Lane Conditional Use - Major Extraction p.7  Decision  Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, by a vote of three in favor and none Conditional use approval pursuant to $8 18:1-14.C.(7) and 18:1-95.E of the Code to conduct a 27.301-acre major extraction operation, subject to the following conditions: 1. Proper controls and methods are maintained to minimize truck "mud" tracking or 2. The facilities must be adequately designed and maintained to free dirt and debris from the wheels and undercarriage of trucks prior to entering Cherry Lane; 4. Any changes in the hours of operation will require additional approvals; 5. All landscaping required shall be maintained to assure plantings remain alive and healthy during the operation period. The applicant provides a cash surety/bond for 6. Haul trucks shall adhere to the approved haul route as discussed and presented; 8. The applicant submits as-built updates to the BOA and Department of Planning & Zoning on a schedule to be determined by the BOA and agrees to an Annual 9. All State permits are in place prior to final permitting by Queen Anne's County; 10.. Any legal documents are reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission 11. Any future mining phases or changes to the end use plan must return to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the Board of Appeals for an amendment to 12.A Any and all financial sureties for reclamation, landscaping, stormwater management, and enforcement, etc., are in place before final permits are granted;  opposed, the Board grants to the Applicant:  dust plumes in dry times with wind drift suppression;  3. All Soil Conservation District approvals are maintained;  all landscaping;  7. Material storage piles cannot exceed 45'i in height;  Inspection;  attorney;  the conditional use;    R.B. Baker & Sons, Inc. 311 Cherry Lane Conditional Use Major Extraction p.8  13. There shall be no truck parking on Cherry Lane. No stacking or parking outside of the gate, no Jake brakes, and no tailgate slamming either on site or on the public road. The Applicant shall post a sign with a notice regarding these restrictions; 14.Any requirements by the Queen Anne's County Roads Department must be 15. Per the State Highway Administration, thermoplastic pavement markings must be installed and maintained by the applicant to provide adequate deceleration and 16. Per the State Highway Administration, after 10 years of operation of the mine and active hauling, the applicant must provide the State Highway Administration a written report ofi inspection of the haul route that will include pictures to note any pavement deterioration areas. Deteriorated areas along the haul route, including those within the intersections, are to be repaired at the expense of the applicant during and upon completion of the operations of the mine and active hauling; and 17.Any outstanding documentation or comments stemming from agency reviews are  satisfactorily addressed;  acceleration lanes;  addressed prior to permitting.    R.B. Baker & Sons, Inc. 311 Cherry Lane Conditional Use - Major Extraction p.9  ORDER  For the reasons set forth in the foregoing Opinion. itisth this l1th day ofJune, 2024. ordered that the conditional use approval requested for R.B. Baker & Sons, Inc.. in Case No. BOA-22-  03-0112, be granted, subject to the conditions set forth in the Opinion.  EhCaela Howard A. Dean, Chairman  CNML Craig W. McGinnes, Vice-Chairman  Michael A. Lesniowski, Member    R.B. Baker & Sons, Inc. 311 Cherry Lane Conditional Use Major Extraction p.10  State ofMaryland, County of Queen Anne's:  IHEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy oft the Opinion and Order oft the Board of Appeals of Queen Anne's County in Case No. BOA-22-03-0112, for R.B. Baker & Sons, Inc., which Opinion and Order resulted from a public hearing conducted by the Board of Appeals on March 20, 2024 and that the minutes and a recording of the March 20, 2024  meeting are filed in the office of Board of Appeals.  Certified this 1lth day of. June, 2024 by:  Coechiy Malul Cathy Maxwell Clerk to the Board of Appeals