BJARD OF APPEALS  Queen Anne's County  110 Vincit St., Suite 104 Centreville, MD: 21617 Telephone : (410).7 758-1255 Fax: (410-758-2905  County Commissioners: James J. Moran, AtLarge Jack N. Wilson. Jr., District I J.Patrick McLaughlin, District2 Philip L. Dumenil, District3 Christopher M. Corchiarino, District 4 VIAEMAIL July5, 2024  Ms. Mary Rhoderick 517 Kentmorr Rd. Stevensville, MD 21666  RE: BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. BOA-24-03-0173 SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR ADDITION BUILDING PERMIT NO. BR23-12-0880  Dear Ms. Rhoderick:  Enclosed is the Board's formal Decision from the May 15, 2024 hearing. Your request fora variance to reduce the required 15 ft. side yard setback to 10ft. to construct an addition to  your existing dwelling was approved.  The addition must be constructed as shown on your Applicant's Exhibit No. 5.  Please contact our Permit Dept. at 410-758-4088 if you have any questions about your pending  permit. Sincerely Caayd Cathy Maxwell Clerk Enc.  CC: Genevieve MacFarlane, Esq. Board Members Crystal Richard, Esq. Amy Moredock  Ryan Anderson Lyndsey. J. Ryan, Esq. Vivian Swinson Permits        BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY  In the matter ofApplication by Mary Rhoderick for Zoning Variance  Case No. BOA-24-03-0173  FINAL DECISION OFTHE BOARD  Introduction  The Queen Anne's County Board of Appeals (the "Board") held a meeting on May 15, 2024 at 5:00 p.m. to consider Case No. BOA-24-03-0173 fora a variance application filed by Mary Rhoderick (hereinafter the Applicant"). The Board members present were Chairman, Howard  Dean, and Board Members Michael Lesniowski and Barry Waterman.  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 May 15th 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. Appliçant requests a variance to the provisions ofg1 18:1-14.E.0)0)20) ofthe Code of Public Local Laws of Queen Anne's County (the "Code"), to reduce the required side yard setback from 15 feet to 10 feet to construct an addition to an existing dwelling located at 517 Kentmorr Road in the Kentmorr Airpark Subdivision near Stevensville, Maryland, in the 4th Election District (hereinafter the "Property"). The Property is located in the Neighborhood-20 (NC-20). Zoning District and the Limited Development Area (LDA) Critical Area designation.  The Applicant submitted a Building Permit (BR23-12-0880) to construct a 30' X 15' kitchen addition to an existing single-family dwelling, a 20'4-1/2"x2 21' garage addition attached by an 8'-1/2"x4 4' covered walkway overal4'x8-12" concrete slab. On February 14, 2024, the Queen Anne's County Zoning Inspector denied the Applicant's Building Permit after determining that the proposed addition does not meet the minimum 15' side yard setback as required by $ 18:1-  19.E(c)[fii oft the Code.    Rhoderick - side yard variance 517 Kentmorr Road p.2  Applicable Provisions of the Code  The standards the Board must apply to the Applicant's variance request are set forth in $ 18:1-121.B. oft 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. ofthe 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 Robert Owen, Zoning Inspector with the Department of Planning & Zoning, presented his staffr report. Mr. Owen identified the Property as 517 Kentmorr Road, Stevensville, Maryland. He further identified the Property as Tax Map 70, parcel 24, consisting of 20,000 square feet. The Property is zoned Neighborhood Conservation-20 (NC-20). There are no mapped wetlands, hydric soils, floodplain, or sensitive species located on the Property, but it is located within the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area with a designation of Limited Development Area (LDA).  He said the Applicant is seeking to construct a 15' x 30' kitchen addition which requiresa variance to reduce the side yard setback from 15' to 10'. The Property is part of the Kentmorr Airpark subdivision that was approved in 1947. Iti isi improved with a single-family dwelling which was constructed in 1959 based on records from the assessment office. He said the Applicant is proposing to construct a 30 x 15' kitchen addition and a 20'4-1/2"x21' garage addition attached by an 8'-1/2" X 4' covered walkway over a 14' X 8'-1/2" concrete slab. The proposed kitchen addition on the right side of the single-family dwelling is within the required side yard setback.  The remainder of the proposed additions meet the required setbacks.    Rhoderick side yard variance 517 Kentmorr Road p.3  The Property is a conforming lot in the NC-20 Zoning District. The Property is permitted to have 25%1 lot coverage, which the. Applicant will not exceed if the additions are approved. The single-family dwelling is 9.9' from the right-side lot line and does not meet the required 15' side yard setback. However, the existing single-family dwelling is a legal non-conforming structure in accordance with $ 18:1-124 of the Code. Although the single-family dwelling is a legal non- conforming structure, Mr. Owen explained that $ 18:1-129 of the Code does not permit alteration, enlargement, or expansion of a nonconforming use or structure unless the alteration will bring the structure into full compliance with all requirements of Chapter 18:1. Given that the proposed kitchen addition will not bring the single-family dwelling into compliance, a variance is necessary. Mr. Owen provided the Board with prior variances that were permitted on Kentmorr Road near the Applicant's Property. Specifically, 501 Kentmorr Road received a variance toi the required 35' front yard setback to construct an addition within 27'4" of the front yard property line. 506 Kentmorr Road received front yard and rear yard setback variances to construct an addition within  29' oft the front yard and 34.25' oft the rear yard property lines.  After completion of his staff report, Mr. Owen stated that the Applicant must present  evidence of aj practical difficulty to the Board.  Applicant's Presentation  Genevieve MacFarlane, Esquire, presented the application on behalfoft the Applicant. Ms. MacFarlane advised that the Applicant is seeking to reduce the required side yard setback from 15' to 10' toj permit the construction ofal bedroom and kitchen addition on the Applicant's existing dwelling which is 940 square feet. Then, Ms. MacFarlane advised the Board of the standards the  Applicant is required to meet for the Board to grant a variance.  Ms. MacFarlane said that the Board is required to find that a literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty as specified in the zoning ordinance. She cited Dan' 's Mountain Wind Force, LLC V. Allegany County Board of Zoning Appeals, 236 Md. App. 483 (2018), finding that there are two different standards and the applicable standard rests on the type of variance being requested. Specifically, Dan' 's Mountain Wind Force, LLC: states, "It]he determination of which standard to apply, practical difficulties' or 'unnecessary hardship' rests on which of two types of variances is being requested: 'area    Rhoderick - side yard variance 517 Kentmorr Road p.4  variances' or 'use variances'."236 Md. App. at 501.1 It further states, "[t]he less stringent practical difficulties' standard applies to area variances, while the unnecessary hardship' standard applies to use variances." Id. Ms. MacFarlane said that the less stringent practical difficulties standard applies to area variances and the unnecessary hardship standard applies to use variances. Then, she described an area variance as variances from area, height, density, setback, or sideline restrictions. Then, Ms. MacFarlane cited Montgomery County V. Rotwein, 169 Md. App. 716 (2006). As the Applicant is requesting a use variance, Ms. MacFarlane said that the Applicant is required to meet the less stringent practical difficulty standard. To meet the practical difficulties standard, Rotwein provides a three prong test: "(I) whether compliance with strict letter of restrictions governing area, setbacks, frontage, height, bulk, or density would unreasonably prevent owner from using property for permitted purpose or would render conformity with such restrictions unnecessarily burdensome, (2) whether grant of variance applied for would do substantial justice to Applicant as well as to other property owners in district, or whether lesser relaxation than that applied for would give substantial reliefto owner of property involved and bei more consistent with justice to other property owners, and (3) whether reliefcan be granted in such fashion that spirit ofordinance will be observed and public safety and welfare secured." 169 Md. App. at 729.  Ms. MacFarlane said that the Applicant would be unreasonably prevented from using her Property for aj permitted purpose without the variance. In addition, she said that the restrictions are unnecessarily burdensome on the Applicant. She said that the existing dwelling encroaches into the required side yard setback. In addition, with the addition, the. Applicant's Property will remain below the maximum lot coverage permitted. She said that granting the variance would do substantial justice to the Applicant as well as other property owners in the neighborhood. In fact, she reminded the Board that Mr. Owen noted two properties, 501 Kentmorr Road and 506 Kentmorr Road, that received property line setback variances. She said 501 Kentmorr Road was granted a 7'6" variance to the front yard property line and 506 Kentmorr Road received a 6' variance from the front yard property line and a 15.75' variance from the rear yard property line. Ms. MacFarlane said that the relief the Applicant seeks is in the spirit of the ordinance and will  not adversely affect public safety or welfare.    Rhoderick - side yard variance 5171 Kentmorr Road p.5  Then, Ms. MacFarlane introduced Ryan. Anderson, professional land surveyor at McCrone, Inc. Mr. Anderson has worked in the land survey field for 25 years and received his Maryland Professional Land Surveyor License. He has conducted many boundary surveys with existing conditions, similar to the survey conducted for the Applicant. He said he began working with the Applicant in. January when he conducted a survey. Then, he pointed the Board to the Applicant's concept plan. He said the Property is a half-acre lot with a small dwelling on it and ai flat backyard. There are mature trees on the Property that the Applicant is not proposing to remove.  He said the Applicant is seeking to add a 15'x3 30' addition which will include a bedroom and a kitchen. In addition, the Applicant is proposing a garage addition with a covered walk from the kitchen area to the garage. With the additions, the Applicant's lot coverage will be 18% which is below the permitted 25%. Mr. Anderson said that the dwelling was built in 1959, prior to the adoption of the Code. As it currently sits, the dwelling encroaches into the 15' side yard setback. He explained that the Applicant is not seeking to encroach further into that side yard setback. Rather, she is seeking to construct the addition to the current side yard setback and then towards  the rear, within the applicable rear yard setback.  Mr. Anderson said that the Applicant needs to construct the addition in line with the existing dwelling and within the side yard setback for continuity with the architecture of the dwelling. He explained that the Applicant cannot add the addition vertically because she needs single-story living due tol her age. Then, he explained that the proposed addition is modest. He said there is no alternative practical location to move the addition due to the location of the dwelling and the existing driveway. In his opinion, Mr. Anderson said that literal enforcement of the Code would deny the Applicant reasonable use of her Property. He said the dwelling was built in 1959 and was constructed over the building restriction! line. As the Applicant is only seeking to encroach into the side yard setback as far as the existing dwelling, he said the request is not contrary to the public interest. In addition, the addition will have very minimal impact on the neighborhood.  He said that an evaluation of alternatives proves that a variance is required in this instance. He added that continuing the existing building line is the Applicant's best option and that the  addition cannot be reduced and accomplish the Applicant's goals.    Rhoderick - side yard variance 517 Kentmorr Road p.6  Then, Ms. MacFarlane introduced the Applicant, Mary Rhoderick. The. Applicant said that she is retired and lost her husband due to cancer in 2020. After her husband passed away, she sold ac condo in Ocean City as it was no longer convenient or accessible given its location on the 3rd floor. Then, she found the Property and purchased iti in 2022. She said the dwelling is a 3-bedroom 1-bathroom with no garage. She is seeking to construct an addition to increase the size of the kitchen, add a bedroom and bathroom, and a garage. She needs to keep the living on one-story for  safety due to her age.  Then, she described the proposed addition. She said that she is seeking to construct a garage connected to the dwelling by a walkway. Through the walkway will be a new bedroom and expanded kitchen, which then flows into existing living area. She said the dwelling is currently 925 square feet and the kitchen is very small. Chairman Dean asked the Applicant if she could move the addition to the other side of the dwelling. Mr. Anderson responded that a driveway currently exists on the other side oft the dwelling SO they are seeking to add a garage there. Ifshe added the kitchen and bedroom addition off of the garage, it would be disconnected from the remaining living area. The Applicant included that she had added al lot ofl landscaping in the other side yard near the driveway that would have to be removed. In addition, there is a large oak tree that is approximately 100 years old that could be damaged by moving the addition to that side of  the Property.  Mr. Waterman asked the Applicant to give the: size oft the proposed bedroom. Thej proposed bedroom addition is 10'9" X 13'3", which Mr. Waterman said is a modest size. Mr. Waterman added that it did not seem practical to construct the addition on the driveway side of the dwelling because it would require modifying the existing floorplan oft the dwelling and moving all utilities. Itv would also require the construction ofai new driveway, which is not practical.  The Applicant concluded by stating that the Property is her intended forever home. She  said she needs the addition to make the dwelling more practical for her current needs.  Testimony from the Public  After the Applicant presented her case, Chairman Dean asked ifany members oft the public  wished to testify. No members of the public testified.    Rhoderick - side yard varianve 517 Kentmorr Road p.7  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.ofthe  Code, the Board specifically finds and concludes as follows:  1. Al literal enforcement of the side yard setback would result inj practical difficulty. 2. The lot is peculiar in that the existing dwelling encroaches into the side yard setback 3. The proposed kitchen and bedroom addition is modest and reasonable to accommodate 4. The existing dwelling on the Property was constructed in 1959 and encroaches into the 5. The variance is the amount minimally necessary to ameliorate conditions giving rise to  and the proposed addition is not encroaching further. the Applicant's need toi increase kitchen and living space.  side yard setback.  any practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship.  Decision  Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, by a vote of three in favor and none A variance from the provisions of 18.1-19,E0)0.4100, to permit the Applicant to reduce the required side yard setback of 15 feet to 10 feet to permit the Applicant to construct a  opposed, the Board grants to the Applicant:  30' x1 15' addition to include al kitchen and bedroom to the existing dwelling.    Rhoderick- - side yard variance 517 Kentmorr Road p.8  ORDER  For the reasons set forth in the foregoing Opinion, itist this 5th day ofJuly, 2024 ordered that the variance requested for Mary Rhoderick, in Case No. BOA-24-03-0173, be  granted.  Soh  Howard A. Dean, Chairman  -  Michael A. Lesniowski, Member  Barry Waterman,      Rhoderick -S side yard variance 517 Kentmorr Road 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 of the Board of Appeals of Queen Anne's County in Case No. BOA-24-03-0173, for Mary Rhoderick, which Opinion and Order resulted from a public hearing conducted by the Board of Appeals on May 15, 2024 and that the minutes and a recording of the May 15, 2024 meeting are  filed in the office of Board of Appeals.  Certified this 5th day of July, 2024 by:  Coby Mekiv Cathy Maxwell Clerk to the Board of Appeals        BOARD OF APPEALS  Queen Anne's County  110 Vincit St., Suite 104 Centreville, MD: 21617 Telephone : (410) 758-1255 Fax: (410-758-2905  County Commissioners: James. J. Moran, AtLarge Jack N. Wilson, Jr., District 1 J.Patrick McLaughlin, District2 Philip L. Dumenil, District3 Christopher M. Corchiarino, District 4 VIAI EMAIL July23, 2024  Mr. Kevin Borgmann Meadow Lake, LLC 205 Fantasy Lane Stevensville, MD 21666  RE: BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. BOA-24-04-0177 CONDITIONAL USE APPROVALI FOR PIER EXTENSION ZONING CERTIFICATE NO. Z24-03-0071  Dear Mr. Borgmann:  Enclosed is the Board's formal Decision from the May 15, 2024 hearing. Your request for conditional use approval to construct a 22.5ft.x6ft. extension to a replacement 1501 ft. pier, including a 10ft. x 20ft. "T" platform and two boat lifts with associated piles, was approved,  with the following condition:  The Applicant install and maintain safety lights on the length of the pier.  The total pier length including all improvements is 182.5ft. from the mean high water line.  The pier must be constructed as shown on your Applicant's Exhibit No. 4.  Please contact our Permit Dept. at 410-758-4088 if you have any questions about your pending  permit. Sincerely, Oaduyfhaual Cathy Maxwell Clerk Enc.    -2  CC: Brendan Mullaney, Esq. George & Cathy Johnston Board Members Lyndsey J. Ryan, Esq. Crystal S. Richard, Esq. Vivian Swinson Amy Moredock Permits    BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY  In the matter of Application by Meadow Lake, LLC for Conditional Use  Case No. BOA-24-04-0177  FINAL DECISION OF THE BOARD  Introduction  The Queen Anne's County Board of Appeals (the "Board") held a meeting on May 15, 2024 at 5:25 p.m. to consider Case No. BOA-24-04-0177 for conditional use approval to construct a 22.51 ft.x6ft. extension to a replacement 150 ft. pier, including a 10ft. x 20 ft. "T" platform and twol boat lifts with associated piles submitted by Meadow) Lake, LLC (hereinafter the* "Applicant"). The Board members present were Board Chairman, Howard Dean, and Board Members Michael  Lesniowski and Barry Waterman.  At the beginning of the hearing, the Board established that all requirements were met governing the filing ofthe conditional use application, and that proper rnotice oft the May 15"public hearing was provided. Board Chairman 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 of $ 18:1-41 oft the Code of Public Local Laws of Queen Anne's County (the "Code"), to construct a 22.5 foot long by 61 foot wide extension to a replacement pier that is 150 foot long, including a "T" platform that is 10 feet by 20 feet and two boat lifts with associated piles at the Applicant's property located at 205 Fantasy Lane, Stevensville, Maryland in the 4th Election District (hereinafter the Property"). Pursuant to $ 18:1-41 oft the Code, a pier may not extend into a body of water a distance greater than 150 feet, as measured from the mean high water line, unless the Board allows a greater length asac conditional use. The Applicant seeks to add an addition to an existing pier which will result  in a pier that is 182'5" channelward of the mean high water line.    Meadow Lake, LLC - 205 Fantasy Conditional Use Pier Length  p.2  The file reflects that the Applicant received a general tidal wetlands license from the Maryland Department of the Environment to, among other things, install a boatlift on existing piles, two PWC lifts with associated piles, and a boatlift with associated piles, all extended a maximum of1 182.5 feet channelward of the mean high water line. The file further reflects that the Applicant obtained approval from the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers.  The Applicant submitted. a Zoning Certificate (No. Z24-03-0071)to construct the proposed addition to the existing pier and two boatlifts on March 1, 2024. On March 25, 2024, the Queen Anne's County Department of Planning & Zoning denied the application for exceeding the  maximum pier length permitted by S 18:1-41 oft the Code.  Applicable Provisions of 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, 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. Thej proposed use at thej 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 ordinances adopted by the County.  In addition, $ 18:1-123.B. requires the Board to make the following findings to approve a  conditional use:    Meadow Lake, LLC-205 Fantasy Conditional Use - Pier Length  p.3  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. 5. 6. 7.  Policies;  Timing of the implementation of the plan;  Timing of development; Timing of rezoning; Development patterns; Land uses; and Densities or intensities.  Property Description and Department of Planning & Zoning Recommendations Robert Owen, Zoning Inspector with the Queen Anne's County Department of Planning & Zoning, presented his Staff Report. He identified the Property as located at 205 Fantasy Lane, Stevensville, Maryland, in the 4th Election District. He said that the Property is 26.61 acres in size and is zoned Countryside and has a Critical Area designation of Resource Conservation Area.  Then, he explained the Applicant's proposal.  Mr. Owen said the Applicant seeks to construct a 32.5' pier extension with a 10' x 20' platform and two boatlifts to a replacement 150 pier with a total length of 182.5'. The proposed pier extension will extend 32.5' beyond the 150' pier length limit established by the County Code. He said the Applicant is requesting relief from $ 18:1-41, establishing the distance a pier can extend into al body ofv water. He said that the pier will not extend more than a quarter oft the distance from the mean high water line to the center line of the body of water. Mr. Owen explained why    Meadow Lake, LLC - 205 Fantasy Conditional Use - Pier Length  p.4  the application was for conditional use approval rather than a variance. Specifically, he said that the Applicant submitted its application for conditional use approval prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 24-03 by the County Commissioners of Queen Anne's County which amended $ 18:1-41 of the Code to require a variance to exceed the maximum pier length of 150 feet rather  than conditional use approval.  Mr. Owen said that the Applicant has owned the Property since 2020. The permit records indicate that the pier that is being replaced was constructed in 2001 by permit Z01-0965, which permitted a 150' long pier with six mooring piles and one boatlift. The. Applicant filed permit Z22- 03-0120 fora 185' long pier in March 2022 but later withdrew that permit. Mr. Owen said that the Applicant is proposing to replace an existing pier under permit Z24-03-0070. He said that the pier was inspected after construction and was found to be over the permitted 150' length. Therefore, he said, the Applicant's application addresses the 32.5' long pier extension with a 10' X 20'  platform and two boatlifts which exceed the 150' limit.  The proposed pier does not meet the zoning requirements for the length ofay pier extending into the body of water. Therefore, he reminded the Board that the Applicant is seeking conditional use approval to construct a 32.5' pier extension with a 10' x 20' platform and two boatlifts to a replacement 150' long pier with a total length of182.5' long. He said the width of the applicable section of waterway is approximately 4,134' and the quarter distance is 1,034', which the Applicant is within. He added that the proposed pier is consistent with the approval the Applicant received from MDE. Then, hej provided the standards thel Board must find to permit the conditional use application. Mr. Owen said that the pier located at 200 Fantasy Lane received approval from  the Board for a 250' pier in 1993.  He said the Board may consider the Comprehensive Plan goal to implement resource protection, conservation, and the preservation strategies that protect aquatic life throughout the County. He said the Board may also wish to consider whether a residential need to a pier at the proposed length may be more appropriate to a marina boat slip. Mr. Owen said that all electrical installations must meet the current edition of the National Electrical Code and the Floodplain requirements. There are no environmental impacts to wetlands, hydric soils, or sensitive species. However, he said that a Buffer Mitigation Plan will be required for any increase in lot coverage  onsite at a ratio of2:1.    MeadowLake, LLC-2 205 Fantasy Conditional Use - Pier Length  p.5  Mr. Owen concluded by stating that the proposed pier does not meet the zoning requirements for the length of a pier extending into a body of water. Therefore, the Applicant is seeking to construct a 32.5' addition including a 10' X 20' platform and two boatlifts to the replacement pier that is 150' in length. Board Member Lesniowski asked if the Property has an existing pier that is 182' in length. The Applicant's attorney responded that the existing pier is 182' in length, which the Applicant is seeking to replace. The existing pier was not constructed by the Applicant. Mr. Waterman asked ift the pier already exists. Mr. Owen responded that the pier is existing and the Applicant needs conditional use approval to exceed the permitted length of150'.  Applicant's Presentation  Brendan Mullaney, McAllister, DeTar, Showalter & Walker, LLC, attorney and agent on behalf of the Applicant, presented the Application. First, Mr. Mullaney introduced Kevin Borgmann, an ownerofMeadow, Lake, LLC. Then, Mr. Mullaney provided the Board withl history oft the Property and the existing pier. He said that the existing 182.5' pier was built in 2001. The pier was originally permitted by MDE in 1999 at up to 250'. Mr. Mullaney said that the County issued aj permit to construct a pier pursuant to the 1999 permit but the permit was issued in 2001 foral 150' long pier. However, a 182.5' long pier was constructed and there is no evidence that the pier was permitted to be constructed beyond 150'. Therefore, it is presumably a nonconforming  pier due to the length.  Mr. Mullaney said that the subject pier was constructed by prior property owners. The current owner purchased the Property in 2020. He said the Applicant has used the existing 182.5' pier since the Property was purchased without issue. Unfortunately, on January 9, 2024, a storm destroyed the pier beyond repair. Mr. Mullaney provided photographs depicting the pier after the  storm.  Mr. Mullaney said that the pier was damaged and needs tol be replaced ati its existing length due to the existing water depth. He explained at that 150', the mean low water depth at the end of the pier is 1. Contrary, at 182.5' - 185', the water depth is 1.5', providing an additional 6'-8" of water depth. He said the additional water depth is meaningful when considering the depths that  boats need.  Then, Mr. Mullaney said that he believes the pier was initially installed at 185', although it was permitted at 150' in length. He explained that gaps in available aerial imagery make it    Meadow Lake, LLC - 205 Fantasy Conditional Use - Pier Length  p.6  difficult to pinpoint exactly when the additional length was installed. However, an aerial from 2005 depicts the pier at approximately 185'. Therefore, the pier has been in existence for almost 20 years. Then, Mr. Mullaney provided a copy of the recent MDE approval permitting the 182.5'  pier.  After explaining the necessity for the application, Mr. Mullaney gave an overview ofthe three conditional use standards. He explained that a conditional use is a use that is deemed permitted on certain property unless such use causes unique adverse impacts. In addition, the use must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or any other plan adopted by the County. He said the Applicant is seeking to replace aj pier that existed on the Property since 2001 without detriment. Regarding the Comprehensive Plan, he said that it emphasizes the role ofrecreation and an exceptional quality of life enjoyed through a variety of natural resources that support outdoor recreation such as boating and fishing. He added that approval from the Board ensures that his clients can reasonably exercise their riparian rights. Regarding the last finding for granting conditional use approval, he said that the pier will not be served by any public improvements nor  does it impose an undue burden.  Then, Mr. Mullaney provided the Board with aerial photographs depicting the peninsula around the Property to depict other piers in the vicinity of the Applicant's and their comparable sizes. He said the photographs also depict significant accretion of sand and sediment resulting in water depths ofl' at 150' from mean high water. He identified neighboring piers at lengths of 176.8', 196.6', 200', and 250'. Along the southern point of the peninsula, he identified piers at  lengths of 325', 354', and 346'.  Mr. Mullaney concluded by stating that the 182.5' pier has existed on the Property for over 25 years. The pier has not had any detrimental or adverse impact. The proposed pier will not create  any noise, glare, or light.  Board Member Waterman asked ift the additional 32' requested for the addition included the 10' x 20' platform, or ift the platform was in addition to the 32'.Mr. Mullaney responded that the 10' x 20' platform is included in the 32' requested. Mr. Lesniowski asked ift the Applicant had  concerns with providing lights on the pier, to which he responded he did not.    Meadow Lake, LLC-205 Fantasy Conditional Use - Pier Length  p.7  Testimony from the Public  Chairman Dean asked if members of the public wished to comment. No members of the  public commented.  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 oftl the conditional use: request. Based on the evidence presented, and duly considering the appliçable factors from the Queen  Anne's County Code, the Board specifically finds and concludes as follows:  1. The application is consistent with the 2022 Queen Anne's County Comprehensive Plan 2. Aj pier may not extend into a body of water a distance greater than 150 feet, as measured 3. The water depth extending out from the Property is 1', which is shallow for boating 4. The 182.5' pier has been in existence for approximately 20 years without any adverse  which encourages boating and water recreation.  from the mean high water line, unless permitted by the Board.  purposes.  impact on the neighbors or boating traffic.  5. The 182.5' pier was damaged by a storm and requires replacement.  6. . A1 182.5-foot-long pier will not result in 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, 7. The pier will be adequately served by, and will not impose an undue burden on, any oft the  safety, and general welfare.  required improvements referred to in Chapter 18:1, Part 7 ofthe Code. 8. There are piers in proximity with similar or longer lengths.  Decision  Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, by a vote of three in favor and none opposed, the Board grants to the Applicant conditional use approval to construct the following:    Meadow Lake, LLC - 205 Fantasy Conditional Use - Pier Length  p.8  1. 22.5ft.x6f. exemiontoarplacement 150ft. pier, including al 10ft.x2 20f ft. "T"platform and two boat lifts with associated piles. The total pier length including all improvements is 182.5 ft. from the mean high water line subject to the following condition: a. The Applicant install and maintain safety lights on the length of the pier.    Meadow Lake, LLC-205 Fantasy Conditional Use - Pier Length  p.9  ORDER  For the reasons set forth in the foregoing Opinion, iti is this 23rd day ofJ July, 2024, ordered that the conditional use approval requested for Meadow Lake, LLC, in Case No. BOA-24-04-0177, be granted, subject to the conditions set forth in the Opinion.  Howard A. Dean, Chairman  Poh  -  Michael A. Lesniowski, Member  -  Barry  Watermfan,  Alternate Member A    Meadow Lake, LLC-2051 Fantasy Conditional Use - Pier Length  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 of the Board of Appeals of Queen Anne's County in Case No. BOA-24-04-0177, for Meadow Lake, LLC, which Opinion and Order resulted from aj public hearing conducted by the Board of Appeals on May 15,2024 and that the minutes and a recording of the May 15, 2024  meeting are filed in the office of Board of Appeals.  Certified this 23rd day of. July, 2024 by:  Catluy ( Cathy Maxwell Clerk to the Board of Appeals  Maw)