McCormick Variance 801 Monroe Manor Road February 16, 2024  BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY  In the matter ofApplication by Ryan McCormick for Zoning Variance  Case No. BOA-23-10-0166  FINALI DECISIONOF THEB BOARD  Introduction  The Queen Anne's County Board of Appeals (the "Board") held a meeting on January 17, 2024 at 4:00 p.m. to consider Case No. BOA-23-10-0166 for a variance application filed by Ryan McCormick (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 of the variance application, and proper notice of the January 17th 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 requests a variance to the provision of $ 81-19.E.0X0)41e10 of the Code of Public Local Laws of Queen Anne's County (the "Code"), to reduce the required 35 foot front yard setback to 22 feet to construct an addition to the existing dwelling. The Applicant's property is located at 801 Monroe Manor Road, Stevensville, Maryland (the "Property"). The Property is located in the Neighborhood-Conservation-15 (NC-15) Zoning District and Limited Development Area (LDA) Critical Area designation. The Applicant submitted a Building Permit (No. BR23-03-0600) to construct, among other things, a 5' X 26'2" front porch addition (the "proposed porch addition"). The total floor area of the proposed porch is 130 square feet. On October 3, 2023, the Queen Anne's County Zoning Inspector denied the Applicant's Building Permit after determining that the proposed porch addition would be 22 feet from Monroe Manor  1    McCormick Variance 801 Monroe Manor Road February 16, 2024 the Code.  Road which did not meet the minimum front yard setback of35 feet required by $ 18-1-19.E. of  Applicable Provisions oft the Code  The standards the Board must apply to the Applicant's variance request are set forth in $ 18:1-121.B. of the Code. To grant the requested variance, the Board must find as follows:  1. 2. 3. 4. 5.  Literal enforcement of this Chapter 18:1 would result in unnecessary hardship or  practical difficulty as the result of specified conditions;  Those conditions are peculiar to the property involved; Those conditions are not the result of any action taken by the appellant; The variance will not be contrary to the public interest; and Evaluation of alternatives proves variance is required.  In addition, pursuant to $ 18:1-122.A. of the Code, the Board must find that any variance granted is no greater than an amount minimally necessary to ameliorate the conditions giving rise  to any practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship.  Property Description and Department of] Planning & Zoning Recommendations Michael Olds, Zoning Inspector with the Department of Planning & Zoning presented his staff report. Mr. Olds said that the Applicant is seeking to construct a front porch addition to his residence that was constructed in 1977. Specifically, the Applicant is seeking a variance of13 feet from the front yard setback of 35 feet to construct a 5' x 26'2" front porch addition.  Mr. Olds identified the Property and its location. He identified the Property in the Fourth Election District of Queen Anne's County located at 801 Monroe Manor Road at Tax Map 49 Parcel 39. The Property is 15,000 square feet and is zoned NC-15 and located within the Limited Development Area in the Critical Area. He explained that the Property is a corner lot that fronts Monroe Manor Road on two sides of the Property -1 the front and the side. Pursuant to $ 18App-1 ofthe Code, front setbacks apply to each property line that abuts a road on corner lots, requiring a setback of35 feet from Monroe Manor Road in the front yard and the side yard.  Mr. Olds said that the residence on the Property is nonconforming because the setback from Monroe Manor Road is 22 feet. The residence was constructed in 1977, prior to the adoption of the applicable setback. He explained that the Applicant is not seeking to increase the  2    McCormick Variance 801 Monroe Manor Road February 16, 2024  nonconformity as the proposed porch addition is 22 feet from Monroe Manor Road. He said that the Property is a corner lot and curves along Monroe Manor Road reducing the size of the front  yard along the curve.  Applicant's Presentation  Ryan McCormick presented the application for the proposed porch addition. He said that his Property is a corner lot that fronts Monroe Manor Road on two sides. He said that he believed he owned thel Property up to the roadbed ofMonroe Manor Road but determined during the Queen Anne's County building permit process that his Property line is setback a few feet from the roadbed. He said that his residence is a split level causing an uneven roof overhang. By constructing the proposed porch addition, the Applicant said hei is seeking tol have as straight across  roofline.  He explained that he currently has a porch in that he is seeking to expand by constructing the 130 square foot addition. The proposed porch addition will allow him to utilize his porch, which is currently just a walkway that he cannot fit chairs on. He is seeking to create an outdoor covered area where he can sit in the shade and enjoy the outdoors, which he currently does not have due tot the size ofthe existing porch. In addition, he will add one support pillar on thej proposed porch addition to support a second story addition. He said due to the location ofh his residence and that the Property is a corner lot, there is nowhere else that he can construct aj porch addition.  Testimony from the Public  After the Applicant presented his case, Chairman Dean asked if any members oft the public  wished to testify. No one testified.  Findings and Conclusions ofthe 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 $18:1-121.C. of the  Code, the Board specifically finds and concludes as follows:  1. A literal enforcement of the front yard setback would result in practical difficulty as  the Applicant's Property fronts Monroe Manor Road on two sides.  3    McCormick Variance 801 Monroe Manor Road February 16, 2024  2. The proposed porch addition does not encroach into the setback any further than the  existing structure.  3. The residence on the Property is nonconforming and was built in 1977.  4. The Property is a corner lot and the road curves, reducing the width oft the front yard at  the curve.  5. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. any practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship.  6. The variance is the amount minimally necessary to ameliorate conditions giving rise to  Decision  Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, by a vote of three in favor and none A variance from the provisions of $ 81-19:E.0)0.4C10 to permit the Applicant to reduce the required 35 foot front yard setback to 22 feet to construct a 5' X 26'2" front  opposed, the Board grants to the Applicant:  porch addition.  4    McCormick Variance 801 Monroe Manor Road February 16, 2024  ORDER  For the reasons set forth in the foregoing Opinion, itist this 23rd day of February, 2024 ordered that the variance requested for Ryan McCormick, in Case No. BOA-23-10-0166,  be granted.  BheCrela Howard A. Dean, Chairman  CN.ML Craig W. McGinnes, Vice-Chairman  Michael A. Lesniowski, Member  5    McCormick Variance 801 Monroe Manor Road February 16, 2024  State ofMaryland, County of Queen Anne's:  IHEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is ai true and correct copy of the Opinion and Order oft the Board of Appeals of Queen Anne's County in Case No. BOA-23-10-0166, for Ryan McCormick, which Opinion and Order resulted from aj public hearing conducted by the Board of Appeals on January 17,2024 and that the minutes and a recording of the. January 17,2024  meeting are filed in the office of! Board of Appeals.  Certified this 23rd day of February, 2024 by:  Cath Matuol Cathy Maxwell' Clerk to the Board of Appeals  6    BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY  In the matter ofApplication by Tony Musco and Eileen Mariotti  Case No. BOA-23-03-0147  Variance  FINAL DECISION OF THE BOARD  Introduction  The Queen Anne's County Board of Appeals (the "Board") held a meeting on. January 17, 2024 at 4:15 p.m. to consider Case No. BOA-23-03-0147 for a variance application filed by Tony Musco and Eileen Mariotti (hereinafter the "Applicants"). 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 of the variance application and proper notice of the January 17th public hearing. Board Chairman Dean administered the oath to all who wished to testify on the  application, including the Applicants.  Applicants' Request  The Applicants are seeking a variance to the provision of $ 14:1-53.C(2) of the Code of Public Local Laws of Queen Anne's County (the "Code"), to construct an in-ground pool and accompanying deck shoreward of existing structures in the 100 foot Buffer Exemption Area at their property located at 632 Bayside Drive, Stevensville, Maryland (the" "Property"). Specifically, the Applicants are seeking to construct an 18' x 38' in-ground pool and construçt a new 4' x3 38' wooden deck. The pool and new deck will be constructed shoreward beyond existing structures  on the Property which is in the modified Buffer Exemption Area.  The Zoning Inspector denied the Applicants' zoning certificate application Z22-09-0334 to construct an in-ground pool and associated decking because the Applicants are: seeking tol locate the pool and decking shoreward of the existing structures on the Property. Pursuant to $ 14:1- 53.C(2) of the Code, new development or redevelopment shall minimize the shoreward extent of    Musco/Mariotti - 632 Bayside Drive Variance swimming pool in BEA  p.2  intrusion into the Buffer Exempt Area and shall not exceed the shoreward extent of existing  structures located on the property.  Applicable Provisions ofthe Code  The standards the Board must apply to the Applicant's variance request from the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Act are set forth in $ 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 ofs specified conditions, which hardship is not shared by owners of other property  int the same development area;  2. 3. 4. 5. 6.  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,  owners of like property and/or structures within the critical area:  wildlife. or plant habitats within the critical area;  7. The variance is the minimum deviation from the provisions of this Chapter 14:1 8. 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 Ina 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  that will make possible the reasonable use of land or structures; and  the applicable density limitations.  COMAR27.01.12.04, are as follows:  1. In accordance with Natural Resources Article, $8-1808(d)3)(), 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 of the  local jurisdictions program;    Musco/Mariotti - 632 Bayside Drive Variance- - swimming pool in BEA  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 ofthe 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. 6. 7. 8.  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 ofa actions by the applicant;  condition on any neighboring property;  The granting of the variance would not adversely affect water quality or adversely impact fish, wildlife, or plant habitat within the jurisdictions local Critical Area; and The granting oft the variance would be inl harmony with the general spirit and intent ofthe Critical Area law, the regulations in this subtitle, and thel local Critical Area program. Property Description and Department of Planning & Zoning Recommendations Rob Tracey, Senior Planner with the Department of Planning & Zoning presented his staff report. Mr. Tracey identified the Property and its location. The Property is located in the Fourth Election District of Queen Anne's County at 632 Bayside Drive, Stevensville, Maryland. The Property is designated as Parcel 405, Lot 35 on Zoning Map 56. The Property is zoned Neighborhood Conservation.20/NC-20; and is 14,854 square feet. The Property is entirely within the State's Chesapeake Bay Critical Area on land designated Limited Development Area (LDA). The Property is mapped Buffer Exempt Area ("BEA"). Mr. Tracey explained what a BEA is. He said the BEA is a modified buffer area which does not permit additional structures any closer to  the waters edge than the existing structures on the parcel.    Musco/Mariotti- 632 Bayside Drive Variance swimming pool in BEA  p.4  The Property is improved with a single-family dwelling with a deck, driveway, shed, and private pier. The existing one-story dwelling is located approximately 92 feet from mean-high water. Mr. Tracey said that the Applicants are seeking to develop an in-ground pool and accompanying wooden deck to be constructed beyond the shoreward extent of the existing structures on a parcel mapped BEA. The existing waterfront deck is located 76 feet from mean high water. He said the proposed in-ground pool is to be located 52 feet from the mean high-water line, which will result in the proposed pool exceeding the shoreward of the existing structure in violation ofs 14:1-53.C(2) of the Code. Therefore, Mr. Tracey said, the proposed project will be  approximately 24 feet closer to mean high-water than the existing struçtures.  He said that the entire Property is located within an expanded buffer due to hydric soils. Due to the presence of hydric soils, there is no alternative location to construct a pool on the Property without needing a variance from the Board. Mr. Tracey said the Applicants are seeking a variance to build a swimming pool and deck and, in exchange, will demolish an 85 square foot shed, a 559 square foot stone walkway, and 133 square feet of stone landscaping. He said the Applicant's proposal is within the permitted lot coverage limitation of31.25%, or 4,652 square  feet, as the proposed total is 4,115 square feet.  Mr. Tracey discussed the applicable standards that the Board must find to grant the variance. Mr. Tracey advised the Board to discuss and determine if accessory structures, such as pools, are necessary to accomplish the reasonable and significant use of a parcel. He explained that the Board must determine that the use is reasonable and significant to meet the unwarranted or unnecessary hardship standard. Regarding conditions peculiar to the Property, Mr. Tracey stated  that the Property is entirely encumbered by the expanded buffer.  Mr. Tracey advised that the conditions of the Property are not a result of action taken by the Applicants but were caused by the configuration of the BEA and the location of hydric soils and the existing dwelling which was constructed prior to Critical Area law. Then, Mr. Tracey explained the relaxed standards for developing on property located in the BEA. Even with the relaxed standards, he said, the pool and decks are proposed to be located closer than the  grandfathered dwelling built prior to the Critical Area regulations.    Musco/Mariotti - 632 Bayside Drive Variance - swimming pool in BEA  p.5  Mr. Tracey recommended the Board discuss the variance request in relation to consistency with COMAR 27.01.12.04 and $ 14:1-66 of the Code. He encouraged the Board to adopt the conditions contained within his staff report if the Board decides to approve the application and  discussed those conditions.  Finally, Mr. Tracey advised the Board of the letter submitted by Susan Makhlouf, Natural  Resource Planner, Critical Area Commission.  Applicant's Presentation  The Applicants were represented by Genevieve Macfarlane, Esquire of Stevens Palmer, LLC. Requesting a variance from 14:1-53(c)(2) to allow development of an 18' x3 38' inground pool and 152 square foot composite deck to be constructed beyond the shoreward extent of the existing structure. Ms. McFarlane addressed comments made by the Critical Area Commission and stated that the Applicants worked hard to comply with requests made by the Critical Area  Commission.  To establish an unwarranted hardship to warrant a variance, Ms. Macfarlane said that the Applicants must establish that without the variance, they would be denied reasonable and significant use of their property. She cited Assategue Coastal Trust, Inc. V. Schwalbach, 448 Md. 112 (2016) to support that premise. She added that, pursuant to Schwalbach, 448 Md. 112, an applicant must also show the inability to place the development elsewhere on the property without a variance. She said, for reasonable and significant use, the Board is to look at nearby property owners. She said that the Board will hear testimony that aj pool is a common use int the Applicants' neighborhood, on the same street as the Applicants'. Testimony will also include that a pool is  common on properties with similar features.  Then, Ms. MacFarlane introduced Nathan Hoxter from Lane Engineering. Mr. Hoxter said that he has been with Lane Engineering since 2016. He has a Bachelors Degree in Science and Landscape Architecture and is a licensed Landscape Architect in Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware. Mr. Hoxter said that since his start at Lane Engineering, he has worked on properties  with similar features located in the Critical Area.    Musco/Mariotti 632 Bayside Drive Variance - swimming pool in BEA  p.6  Ms. MacFarlane asked Mr. Hoxter to explain his familiarity with the Property. He said that the Applicants contacted him in early 2023 to provide a boundary existing conditions survey and building permit for the pool. He said he worked on the pool plan and buffer management plan. Then, Mr. Hoxter described the Property. He said the Property is 14,856 square feet. It is located within the Critical Area. It is an improved lot with a 1 story dwelling, covered porch, open decks, various sidewalks, patios, and a shed. The dwelling was built in 1983. He said the Property includes ar mix of foundation plantings with mulch and stone. There are a few young trees growing throughout the Property. The remainder of the lawn contains grass sloped down to a rip rapped shoreline. He said that the Property is mapped in the modified buffer area. He explained that the Applicants are seeking a variance to build a 18' x 38' pool and impervious deck within the modified buffer. He: saidt there will ber no impacts to environmental features as a result oft the project because there aren'tmany environmental features on sight. He further explained that the lawn in the front of the Property slopes to the front roadside ditch and there are two shallow depressions on both sides ofe either property line for water. He added that the pool will be above the flood lines. Mr. McGinnes asked if there are other pools in the neighborhood as close to mean high water. Mr. Hoxter said there are none that he is aware of but that they all seem consistent within  the community.  Ms. MacFarlane asked about the Applicants' willingness to mitigate construction within the BEA. Mr. Hoxter said the Applicants were very determined to provide a resolution to comments from the Critical Area Commission. He said the recent buffer mitigation plan includes removal of lot coverage. Ms. MacFarlane asked if the Applicants considered any alternative locations for the pool. Mr. Hoxter said there are no feasible alternative areas for the pool other than the front yard which creates traffic and safety concerns. Mr. McGinnes asked how the size of the  pool compares to others in the neighborhood.  Ms. Ryan asked the Applicant ifany pools were constructed in the neighborhood after the adoption oft the County'sCritical Areal Law. Ms. MacFarlane said that the Board granted a variance for a pool in the buffer in February 2023 to a Property on the same street as the Applicants'. Ms. MacFarlane admitted the Board's formal Decision in that matter, BOA-22-04-0119, into the record. Mr. McGinnes asked how the Applicants' pool compares to the size of pools within the    Musco/Mariotti - 632 Bayside Drive Variance - swimming pool in BEA  p.7  neighborhood. He said the Applicants' pool appears to be fairly sizable based on the plans. Ms. MacFarlane admitted Applicants' Exhibit 11, an aerial photograph of Bayside Drive depicting  properties with inground pools.  Dimensions given include coping sO pool is smaller. Coping is the edge oft the pool to walk around. Mr. Lesniowksi asked ifa any properties within the neighborhood have a pool in the front yard. Mr. Hoxter said that it is very uncommon to have swimming pool located in the front yard. Ms. MacFarlane discussed the letter submitted by the Critical Area Commission in response to the Applicants' application. Mr. Hoxter: said that the Critical Area had a few comments that the Applicants have addressed by removing a shed and changing materials of the pool deck and buffer management plan. He said the Applicants proposed to remove the shed after the comments, but prior to that, they proposed to remove stone walkways and patios on their Property to meet the maximum lot coverage requirements. He said the Applicants are removing 777 square  feet ofl lot coverage.  Mr. Hoxter said the pool is a typical use on waterfront property found in the neighborhood and others throughout the County. He said denial of the variance would create an unnecessary hardship and would deprive the Applicants of a use permitted to others. He said the request from the Applicants is not based on their actions and will not adversely affect water quality or habitats within the Critical Area. He said the variance is the minimum deviation necessary. He said the variance is in harmony with the general spirit and intent of the law and regulations. He concluded by agreeing that the variance is in harmony with the general spirit and intent of the Critical Area  law.  Next, Ms. MacFarlane called Tony Musco and Eileen Mariotti, the Property owners. Mr. Musco said that they purchased the Property in 2016 and viewed it as a retirement home. He said he has family that lives in the neighborhood who have a pool that is about 35' x 17'.1 He said they have 5 grandchildren who want to come over to swim but cannot swim in the Bay due toj jellyfish. Ms. MacFarlane asked for an estimate to remove lot coverage. Mr. Musco said that it has not cost him anything because he removed the lot coverage himself. Regarding the size ofthe pool,    Musco/Mariotti - 632 Bayside Drive Variance - swimming pool inl BEA  p.8  the Applicant said that Coastal Pools has a minimum size pool that they will construct and that is  what the Applicants chose.  Next, Mr. Musco discussed the letter received from the Critical Area Commission and detailed acts he had taken thus far on his Property to comply with their recommendations. He said that he removed some lot coverage on his Property and will add more plantings around the pool.  Mr. Musco said that his wife went through lung surgery due to lung cancer and a pool was recommended for therapy. He said that Ms. Mariotti cannot sit outback in the summer due to the  heat and a pool would help with that.  After receiving questions from the Board, Ms. MacFarlane stated that case law suggests that "reasonable and significant use" isn'tnecessarily defined in Critical Area law and that itis up to the Board to make that determination. She said there have been cases that address swimming pools within the Critical Area and cited a case, White V. North. 356 Md. 31 (1999). Mr. McGinnes stated that he felt a swimming pool in this situation was a reasonable and significant use.  Testimony from the Public  After the Applicant presented his case, Chairman Dean asked ifany members of the public  wished to testify. No members of the public testified.  Eindings and Conclusions of the Board  The Board finds the testimony and application provided by the Applicants 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. Ini this case, the Board finds that a swimming pool is a reasonable and significant 2. A literal enforcement of the Code would result in unnecessary hardship as a result  use ofa a waterfront property within the community;  ofs specific conditions;  3.  There are other properties within the community that have swimming pools, one of  which received approval by the Board of Appeals in 2023;    Musco/Mariotti - 632 Bayside Drive Variance - swimming pool in BEA  p.9  4. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest or the policies, goals and  objectives ofthe Code;  5. 6. property; habitat;  The alternative area for the pool near the driveway and in the front yard creates a safety hazard and is not appropriate or consistent with other properties in the community; The variance will not confer any special privilege denied to other owners of like  7. The variance will not adversely affect water quality ori impact fish, wildlife, or plant  8. The size of the pool is relatively modest; 9. The entire Property is within the BEA;  10. Special features exist on the site that are peculiar to the Applicants' Property and a 11. The Property is impacted by an irregular shoreline with tidal wetlands on two. sides 12. Utilizing a pool for therapeutic measures is a reasonable and significant use ofthe 13. The variance requested is the minimum deviation from the provisions of Chapter 14. The Applicants have overcome the presumption that the pool in the buffer does 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 Applicants any special privilege denied to other owners of like property and/or structures within the critical area as allowing a 17. The Applicants will meet the applicable lot coverage and have undertaken work to  literal enforcement of the Code would result in unwarranted hardship;  resulting in an expanded buffer;  Property;  14:1 to allow for the reasonable use of the Property;  Program would result in an unwarranted hardship to the Applicants;  variance would match the existing condition of adjacent neighbors;  remove existing lot coverage ini the buffer.  Decision  Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, by a vote of three in favor and none  opposed, the Board grants to the Applicant:    Musco/Mariotti - 632 Bayside Drive Variance swimming pool in BEA  p.10  A variance from the provisions of $ 14:1-53.C(2) to construct an inground pool and associated decking beyond the shoreward extent of the existing structure on a Property mapped  Buffer Exempt Area, subject to the following conditions:  1.  The Applicants submit a Buffer Management Plan in accordance with COMAR 27.01.09.01-3 to include a mitigation ratio of3 times the area of proposed lot coverage as well as a cost estimate, maintenance agreement, and appropriate financial sureties; The Applicants cannot receive a building permit for the proposed improvements until the Buffer Management Plan has been approved by Queen Anne's County; and  2. 3.  The Applicants adhere to all other agency comments    Musco/Mariotti - 632 Bayside Drive Variance swimming pool in BEA  p.11  ORDER  For the reasons set forth in the foregoing Opinion. itis this 29th day of February, 2024 ordered that the variance requested for Tony Musco and Eileen Mariotti, in Case No. BOA-  23-03-0147 be granted. subject to the conditions set forth in the Opinion.  EhCrela Howard A. Dean, Chairman  CNM6L Craig W. McGinnes, Vice-Chairman  Michael A. Lesniowski, Member    Musco/Mariotti- - 632 Bayside Drive Variance swimming pool in BEA  P.12.  State of Maryland. County of Queen Anne's:  HEREBY 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-23-03-0147. for Tony Musco and Eileen Mariotti. which Opinion and Order resulted from a public hearing conducted by the Board of Appeals on January 17. 2024 and that the minutes and a recording of the January  17.2024 meeting are filed in the office of Board of Appeais.  Certified this 29th day of February. 2024 by:  Coutlu Mapuelo  Cathy Maxwell Clerk to the Board of Appeals    BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY  In the matter ofApplication by  Case No. BOA-23-09-0165  Miles R. Randall, Jr. and Lisa A. Randall *  for Conditional Use  FINALI DECISION OF THE BOARD  Introduction  The Queen Anne's County Board of Appeals (the "Board") held a meeting on January 17, 2024 at 4:45 p.m. to consider Case No. BOA-23-09-0165 for conditional use approval to conduct as select cut commercial forest harvest operation on 17 +/- acres of land at 141 Wilson Clark Lane near Centreville in the 6th Election District (the "Property") filed by Miles R. Randall, Jr. and Lisa A. Randall (hereinafter the "Applicants"). 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 oft the conditional use application, and proper notice ofthe. January 17th public hearing. Board Chairman, Howard Dean, administered the oath to all who wished to testify on the  application, including the Applicants.  Applicant's Request  The Applicants are seeking conditional-use approval under the provisions of $ 18:1- 19.C.(3) of the Code of Public Local Laws of Queen Anne's County (the "Code"), to engage in a select cut commercial forest harvest operation on 17 +/- acres of land. Commercial forestry is permitted as a conditional use in the Neighborhood Conservation-5 (NC-5) district pursuant to $  18:1-19.C. oft the Code.  Applicable Provisions of the Code  The standards the Board must apply to the Applicant's request for a conditional use are set forth in $ 18:1-94 oft the Code. To approve the conditional use, the Board must find as follows:    141 Wilson Clark Lane Condition Use Forest Harvest Operation P.2  1. The proposed use at the proposed location shall be consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives, and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, 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, Part 7. 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 ofapproval 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 ordinances adopted by the County.  In addition, $ 18:1-123.B. requires the Board to make the following findings to approve a  conditional use:  1. The conditions concerning that conditional use as detailed in this  Chapter 18:1 exist; 2. 3.  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 of the plan;  Timing of development; Timing ofrezoning;    141 Wilson Clark Lane Condition Use - Forest Harvest Operation P.3  5. 6. 7.  Development patterns; Land uses; and Densities ori intensities.  Property Description and Department of Planning & Zoning Recommendations Doug Summers, Associate Planner with the Department of Planning & Zoning, presented his staff report. He said the Applicants are seeking conditional use approval to conduct a commercial forestry operation on one residential lot in the NC zoning district. He said that the  Applicants submitted all documents necessary and have a complete application.  He identified the Property as Queen Anne's County Tax Map 45, Parcel 56, Lot 9. He said the Property is located in the south-central part of the County, approximately 3 miles east of the Centreville town limits. He said the Property is zoned NC-5 and is 17.601 +l-acres, with the entire parcel identified as the timber harvest area. He said the entire Property is encumbered by hydric soils and that nontidal wetlands are present. However, he said the Applicants have provided a  signed Nontidal Wetlands Best Management Practices Agreement.  He said that although the USGS indicated no streams on the Property, several visible waterway courses and/or drainage ditches were identified on site by the forester during a site visit. He said that topographic imaging, in addition to the site visit indicated drainage ditches on site which resulted in establishing a Stream Management Zone (SMZ). Therefore, a SMZ Plan was submitted due to the identification oft the drainage ditches. The boundary oft the SMZi is 50 feet on each side ofthe ditch and is marked with blue flagging. He said that the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife and Heritage Services, conducted an initial assessment and found that the Property was located within the drainage area of Three Bridges Branch, a known habitat for the Federally-listed endangered Dwarf Wedgemussel. However, upon further review, he said that it was determined that the site is not close enough to warrant any concerns, as discussed above. Therefore, DNR provided a final guidance to recommend natural regeneration oft native species in harvested areas, in addition to following recommendations for forest interior dwelling bird habitat  areas.    141 Wilson Clark Lane Condition Use Forest Harvest Operation P.4  Due to the identification of drainage ditches on the Property, he said that the Maryland Forest Service recommended that heavy logging equipment not be utilized within the SMZ. The) Then, Mr. Summers gave an overview of the Forest Timber Plan on the Property. He said the Applicants are proposing a 17.6 acre select cut operation. Trees to be harvested have been marked with blue paint. He said that natural regeneration of mixed oak species is expected following harvest operations. The current basal area within the wooded area is 80 square feet per acre and the post-harvest basal area is 60 square feet which is considered a healthy level.  He said that the project is consistent with the 2022 Queen Anne's County Comprehensive Plan (the "Comprehensive Plan") asi it relates to being a resource-based industry and its adherence to resource protection standards set forth by local, state, and Federal entities. He added that the Comprehensive Plan identifies economic and employment benefits from forestry and resource-  based industries.  He concluded by stating that he supports granting conditional use approval of the application in addition to the logging permit, number S23-08-0372, to carry out a selective cut commercial forestry operation on the Applicants' Neighborhood Conservation zoned property pursuant to $ 18:1-19.C.(3) oft the Code with six conditions identified in the staff report.  Applicant's Presentation  Mr. Randall, one of the Applicants and property owner, presented the application. He said that he is active-duty military and that he is serving his last tour and expects the Property to be his retirement home. He said he purchased the Property primarily for hunting and recreational use. He said there is al lot oftimber on the Property and every time there is a storm in the County, trees fall on his Property. He said that when the trees fall, they take out al lot ofyounger trees and die on the ground. By opening the canopy, he believes it will give the younger trees on the Property the  opportunity to grow.  He said that he wants to take care oft the Property. Mr. McGinnes asked the Applicant ifhe had any concerns with the conditions as provided in Mr. Summers' Staff Report, to which he advised that he did not. Then, Marshall Ebersole with Soapstone Sawmill testified. He said his company conducts harvesting throughout Maryland, including in Kent County and Queen Anne's    141 Wilson Clark Lane Condition Use - Forest Harvest Operation P.5  County. He said that his company deals with properties more complex than the Applicants'. Then, he addressed concerns about the stream crossing. He said they will use crane vats and lay them  across the stream to keep debris from falling into the stream.  He said his company will be on the Property harvesting for one week. The Property predominantly contains white oak but red oaks, beech, and gum trees are also present. As part of the Project, they will be removing beech and gum trees and selling them for lumber. Removal of the beech and gum trees will prevent those types oft trees from taking over the woodland. He said they will mainly remove large white oak trees that are at the end oftheir lifecycle.  He said there are plenty young growth trees that are struggling to grow because the canopy of the large trees is choking them. Responding to a question from Chairman Dean, Mr. Ebersole said that his company willi not cut anything that measures under 18 inches. He: said that the Property is full of trees that are 18 inches and larger. They will remove the trees by utilizing a select cut harvest. In the area around the stream that is marked with blue paint, he said they will winch the trees out. Specifically, they will drop the trees with a chainsaw, grab them with a cable, and pull them out of the marked area dragging only a small portion of the tree on the ground. He said that any disturbance in the area will be seeded and straw will be placed down by hand. They estimate  needing 10: small straw bales to manage the disturbance from the! harvest.  Mr. Lesniowski asked about removing some oft the canopy. Mr. Ebersole said that they will slash canopies of existing mature trees that are not large enough to cut. The brush that falls will  remain on the ground and provide cover for animals.  Testimony from the Public  After the Applicant presented his case, Chairman Dean asked if any members of  the public wished to testify. No members oft the public testified.  Findings and Conclusions ofthe Board  The Board finds the testimony and application provided by the Applicant credible and persuasive. The Board concludes that the evidence justifies approval ofthe 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:    141 Wilson Clark Lane Condition Use Forest Harvest Operation P.6  1. The application is consistent with the 2022 Queen Anne's County Comprehensive Plan, specifically as it relates to being a resource-based industry and its adherence to resource  protection standards set forth by local, state, and federal entities. 2. The project protects natural resources and supports economic development.  3. The forest harvest operation on the Property will not result in a substantial or undue adverse impact on adjacent property, the character ofthe neighborhood, traffic conditions, parking, public improvements, public sites or rights-of-way, or other matters affecting 4. As select timber harvest operation is a permitted conditional use on the Property. 5. The Applicant submitted the required plans, applications, and agreements to the County There are mature trees on the Property that are in danger of dying due to their age and  public health, safety, and general welfare.  for the conditional use.  younger trees that are dying due to the quantity ofmature trees. 7. The forest harvest operation is compatible with the existing neighborhood. 8. The forestry operation will result ini natural regrowth of trees.  9. After the harvest, a healthy remaining density of trees will occupy the Property. 10. There are large acre lots surrounding the Property and a Property west of the Applicants'  was harvested within the last 2-3 years.  Decision  Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, by a vote of three in favor and none 1. Conditional use approval pursuant to $ 18:1-19.C.(3) of the Code to conduct a forest harvest operation on approximately 17 acres, subject to the following conditions:  opposed, the Board grants to the Applicants:  The Applicants adhere to the approved Timber Harvest Plan, specifically focusing on meeting and/or exceeding the post-harvest basal area of6 60 square The. Applicants will adhere to the approved erosion and sediment control plan; The Applicants will adhere to the Non-Tidal Wetlands Best Management  feet per acre;  Practices Agreement for Forest Harvest Operations;    141 Wilson Clark Lane Condition Use - Forest Harvest Operation P.7  The hours of operation on the Property will be Monday through Friday from The Applicants will refrain from utilizing heavy equipment, such as skidders, Per Maryland Department of! Natural Resources guidelines, the Applicants will adhere to the time-of-year restriction for timber harvesting within Forest Interior Dwelling Bird Habitat (FIDS). The restriction timeline is April 1 -  7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.;  within the Stream Management Zone; and  August 31.    141 Wilson Clark Lane Condition Use Forest Harvest Operation P.8  ORDER  For the reasons set forth in the foregoing Opinion, iti is this Sth day of March, 2024, ordered that the conditional use approval requested for Miles R. Randall, Jr. and Lisa A. Randall, in Case No. BOA-23-09-0165, be granted, subject to the conditions set forth in the Opinion.  EhCaeka Howard A. Dean, Chairman  CWMEL Craig W. McGinnes, Vice-Chairman  Michael A. Lesniowski, Member    141 Wilson Clark Lane Condition Use Forest Harvest Operation P.9  State of Maryland, County of Queen Anne's:  IHEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Opinion and Order of the Board of Appeals of Queen Anne's County in Case No. BOA-23-09-0165, for Miles R. Randall, Jr. and Lisa A. Randall, which Opinion and Order resulted from aj public hearing conducted by the Board of Appeals on January 17, 2024 and that the minutes and a recording of  the January 17, 2024 meeting are filed in the office of Board of Appeals.  Certified this 5th day of March, 2024 by:  (puDuy Maduol Cathy Maxwell Clerk to the Board of Appeals    BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY  In the matter ofApplication by Washington College Center for Environment & Society, Lessee of Property owned by Grasslands Plantation, Inc. for Conditional Use  Case No. BOA-23-01-0140  GINALDECISION OF THE BOARD  Introduction  The Queen Anne's County Board of Appeals (the "Board") held a meeting on January 17, 2024 at 5:20 p.m. to consider Case No. BOA-23-01-0140 for conditional use approval for a bird banding station comprised of a 2,082 square foot main building and a 576 square foot pavilion located on the north side ofl Round Top Road near Chestertown within the 7th Election District (the "Property") filed by Washington College Center for Environment & Society, Lessee of property owned by Grasslands Plantation, Inc. (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 conditional use application, and proper notice oft the January 17th 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 under the provisions ofs 18:1-15.C.(13) oft the Code of Public Local Laws of Queen Anne's County (the "Code"), to operate a nonprofit institutional use for education and research associated with a new bird banding station at the Foreman's Branch Bird Observatory. Specifically, they seek to construct a 2,082 square foot indoor bird banding station and a 576 square foot open-air pavilion on property zoned Countryside ("CS"). Nonprofit and for-profit institutions are permitted as conditional uses in the CS district  pursuant to S 18:1-15.C.(13) oft the Code.    Foreman's Branch Observatory Conditional Use February 29, 2024 p.2  Applicable Provisions of the Code  The standards the Board must apply to the. Applicant'st request foraconditional use are set forth in $ 18:1-94 of the Code. To approve the conditional use, the Board must find as follows: the general purpose, goals, objectives, and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, this Chapter 18:1, or any other plan, program, map, or ordinance adopted, or under  1.  The proposed use at the proposed location shall be consistent with  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.  Thej 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 appliçation and as a condition ofapproval of 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 ordinances 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.  Policies;    Foreman's Branch Observatory Conditional Use February 29,2024 p.3  2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.  Timing ofthe implementation of the plan;  Timing of development; Timing ofrezoning; Development patterns; Land uses; and Densities or intensities.  Property Description and Department of Planning & Zoning Recommendations Steven Johnson, County Planner with the Queen Anne's County Department of Planning & Zoning, presented his staff report. He identified the Property, located at Round Top Road, Chestertown, Maryland, and further identified as Tax Map 4 Parcel 109. The Property is within the Countryside Zoning district. He said the Property is located northeast ofKingstown, southwest ofCrumpton, and north ofMcGinnes Road. The Property is 415.321 acres. Mr. Johnson presented an aerial photograph oft the Property containing a star which depicts the project location.  He said there is a tunnel on the Property used for avian research and that the surrounding properties are agricultural. Mr. Johnson said that the Property is zoned both Countryside and Agricultural but that the proposed development is within the Countryside portion oft the Property.  Anonprofit institution is a permitted conditional use in the CS district.  Then, he explained the environmental features of the Property. He said the entire Property ise encumbered by a Rural Legacy Easement. He added that DNR offered no objections to the project. He said the Property is partially located within the Sensitive Species Project Review. Area. There is a Delmarva fox squirrel and FIDS habitat in the forested area but the Applicant is not proposing any disturbance within the Sensitive Species Project Review Area or forested areas. Mr. Johnson said that 73.794 acres of the Property are within the Critical Area designated RCA. There are tidal wetlands, nontidal wetlands, streams, woodlands, floodplain, and steep slopes on the  Property but the Applicant is not proposing disturbances within those areas.    Foreman' s Branch Observatory Conditional Use February 29, 2024 p.4  Mr. Johnson said that the Applicant conceptually meets the requirements of the Forest Conservation Act as they are retaining 84.55 acres of existing woodlands. He said the amount of acreage of the Property that will be protected long term will be determined during the site plan process. Then, he explained the project. He said that the Applicant is proposing to construct a bird banding station that will be located on a 300' X 500' leased area. There will be a breezeway and porch between the pavilion and the main building. Access will be taken from Kennel Lane through an adjacent parcel owned by the Grubers. Mr. Johnson said that an access agreement will be recorded. He said that all CS nonresidential development standards are met including height, setbacks, floor area, impervious coverage, and landscaping. The Property is served by well and septic. Stormwater management will be provided on-site and will be reviewed and approved by the Department of] Public Works. He said the Applicant is required to provide 12 parking spaçes,  which they have met.  Mr. Johnson said that no agencies that have reviewed the Applicant's concept plan have offered objections to approval. He concluded by stating that Department of Planning and Zoning staff does not object to the Board of Appeals granting conditional use approval to permit a bird banding station comprised ofa2 2,082 square foot main building and a 576 square foot pavilion.  Applicant's Presentation  Genevieve MacFarlane, attorney on behalfofthe. Applicant, presented the Application. She said that the Applicant is the current lessee ofa 300' X 500' portion of the Property. She said the Applicant is seeking conditional use approval for a nonprofit institutional use to construct a 2,082  square foot bird banding station and a 576 square foot pavilion.  Ms. MacFarlane introduced Kevin Shearon, DMS & Associates. Mr. Shearon said he has beeni involved with Washington College projects and the Property for many years. He: said the area leased by the Applicant is 300' x 500'. He said the Property used to be tidal but is no longer tidal asaresult ofr remapping of the shoreline completed by Queen Anne's County in conjunction with the Critical Area Commission. Then, Mr. Shearon explained the access to the Property. He said the Applicant and necessary property owners executed a lease for the Property and an access  agreement allowing the Applicant's: access.    Foreman's Branch Observatory Conditional Use February 29, 2024 p.5  He said the Applicant currently operates a bird banding operation where individuals catch birds in nets and band them. Constructing the 2,082 square foot bird banding station will allow the Applicant toj provide a structure to conduct research and for students to study within. He said the location of the bird banding station will have no impact on neighbors of the Property.  Then, Ms. MacFarlane read the criteria necessary to grant conditional use approval. Mr. Shearon said that, in his professional opinion, the Applicant meets the criteria. He added that the Property will be served by a private well and septic. He said that he met with the Queen Anne's County Fire Marshall and the Chief of the Volunteer Fire Company from Crumpton on the Property to discuss emergency access. Specifically, there was initial concern about the width of the access road. However, he said that they determined that the existing lane is adequate and the  Applicant agreed to trim all low-hanging limbs to prevent obstruction.  He said the Applicant will take over the access road as part of the project. Upon taking it over, the Applicant will take over maintenance, grade the access road, and top it with stone. He added that there is a turnaround on the Property that will accommodate emergency vehicles and  larger vehiçles transporting students.  Then, Ms. MacFarlane introduced Valerie Imbruce, Director ofthe Center for Environment and Society of Washington College, and Maren Gimple, Associate Director of] Foreman's Branch Bird Observatory, a program within the Center for Environment and Society at Washington College. Ms. Imbruce explained Foreman's Branch Bird Observatory, which is a major migratory bird banding station that is federally permitted to catch and document migratory birds. The  Observatory has operated since 1998.  Then, Ms. Gimple explained bird banding. She said banding is a primary tool researchers use to study birds and their migration. In the banding operation, they utilize nets to catch birds, band them, collect measurements or conduct additional research, and then release them. Then, they track the bands to determine the birds' migration. Ms. Imbruce added that the location of the Observatory is important given the longevity of the migration operation at that location. Ms. Gimple said that the nets are closed when the Property is vacant to avoid trapping a bird. She said that she, and others conducting the work at the Observatory, arrive at the location in the morning    Foreman's Branch Observatory Conditional Use February 29, 2024 p.6  when it is still dark. The Observatory has temporary paid staff, year-round paid staff, student interns, and volunteers. They operate at the Observatory approximately 5 hours per day during the banding season. The spring banding season is from March to May and the fall banding season is from August to November. For a few weeks in October, they catch and band owls at night at the Observatory. She said that outside ofthe banding season, the activity at the Observatory isreduced. Constructing the new bird banding station and pavilion will allow them to continue their research and education. Ms. Gimple said that visits from grades K-12 have been limited due to the current site conditions. Specifically, the bird banding station is an old pheasant rearing shed with no potable water or plumbing forcing them to utilize aj porta potty. In addition, the old shed is not climate controlled and does not provide much space sO it is difficult for staff to complete work. She also raised concern about the safety of the equipment within the shed because it is not secure. Even with visitors, Ms. Gimple said there is usually a limited number of vehicles on site. In addition, the group sizes on site are usually small. Ms. Imbruce added that having a banding program is unique for higher education and that students attend Washington College because of  the program.  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.  Findings and Conclusions ofthe Board  The Board finds the testimony and application provided by the Applicant credible and persuasive. The Board concludes that the evidencej justifiesapproval 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:  1.1 The application is consistent with the 2022 Queen Anne's County Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Property is located within the Countryside district which identifies the Property as  Permanently Preserved Lands.    Foreman's Branch Observatory Conditional Use February 29, 2024 p.7  3. The proposed use ist noti inappropriate at thel location as the Applicant is currently operating  al bird banding station near the Property. 4. There is adequate parking on the Property.  5. The Property will be served by a well and an on-site sewage disposal system. An existing 6. The use on the Property will not result ins substantial or undue adverse impacts on adjacent properties, the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, parking, public improvements, public sites or rights-of-way, or other matters affecting the public health,  road will be utilized for access to the site.  safety, and general welfare.  7. The proposed use is compatible with the existing neighborhood.  Decision  Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, by a vote of three in favor and none 1. Conditional use approval pursuant to $ 18:1-15.C.(13): )ofthe Code toj permit a nonprofit institutional use to construct a bird banding station comprised of a 2,082 square foot main building and a 576 square foot pavilion, subject to the following conditions:  opposed, the Board grants to the Applicant:  Any remaining edits and/or documents required by a reviewing agency, the Department of Public Works, or Planning and Zoning be reviewed and The lease and access agreements must be recorded prior to site plan approval.  approved prior to site plan approval.    Foreman's Branch Observatory Conditional Use February 29,2024 p.8  ORDER  For the reasons set forth in the foregoing Opinion, itisthis Sth day of March, 2024,  ordered that the conditional use approval requested for Washington College Center for Environment & Society, Lessee of property owned by Grasslands Plantation, Inc., in Case No. BOA-23-01-1040, be granted, subject to the conditions set forth in the Opinion.  BhCrub Howard A. Dean, Chairman  CW.MGL Craig W. McGinnes, Vice-Chairman  Michael A. Lesniowski, Member    Foreman's Branch Observatory Conditional Use February 29,2024 p.9  State of Maryland, 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-23-01-0140, for Washington College Center for Environment & Society, Lessee of property owned by Grasslands Plantation, Inc, which Opinion and Order resulted from aj public hearing conducted by the Board of Appeals on January 17, 2024 and that the minutes and a recording of the January  17,2024 meeting are filed in the office of Board of Appeals.  Certified this 5th day ofN March, 2024 by:  Mhabe!  Maxwell" faly Clerk to the Board of Appeals