BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY  Ini the matter ofA Application by Gary Daniels & Annette Daniels for Zoning Variance  Case No. BOA-24-06-0183  FINALDECISION OF THE BOARD  Introduction  The Queen Anne's County Board of Appeals (the "Board") held a meeting on July 17. 2024 at 5:00 p.m. to consider Case No. BOA-24-06-0183 for a variance application filed by Gary & Annette Daniels (hereinafter collectively the "Applicant"). The Board members present were Chairman, Howard Dean, Board Member Michael A. Lesniowski, and Alternate Board Member  Scott McGlashan.  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. July 17h 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 provisions of $ 81-E.0X0141em, of the Code ofPublic Local Laws of Queen Anne's County (the "Code"), to reduce the required 50 foot rear yard setback to 42 feet to construct a replacement deck to the rear of their residence. The Applicant's property is located at 107 Rebecca Lane, Stevensville, and is part of the Sunnyfields minor subdivision approved in August 1995 (hereinafter the "Property"). The Property is located  in the Neighborhood Conservation-15 (NC-15) Zoning District.  The Applicant submitted a Building Permit (No. BR24-03-0199) to construct a replacement 12' x 16' rear deck on an existing footprint. On May 16, 2024, the Queen Anne's County Zoning Inspector denied the Applicant's Building Permit after determining that the    107 Rebecca Lane Setback Variance p.2  proposed rear deck addition was only 42' from the rear property line and did not meet thei minimum  rear lot line setback of 50' as required by $ 18-1-19.E.C)cll), ofthe Code.  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. oft 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 ofl Planning & Zoning Recommendations Mike Olds, Zoning Inspector with the Department of Planning & Zoning presented his staff report. Mr. Olds testified that the Applicant is seeking to construct a 12' X 16' deck. He said that the Applicant has requested a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback from 50 feet to 42  feet.  Mr. Olds identified the Property as being in the Fourth Election District of Queen Anne's County and located in the western part ofthe county, at the north end ofKent Island, approximately 3ofa mile north of Kent Island High School. The lot isi identified as Tax Map 48, Parcel 41, Lot 3, and located on the east side of Old Love Point Road at the intersection of Rebecca Lane in the Sumyields-Subdivision. He stated that the! lotisaconforming lot within thel NC-15zoning district with a single family dwelling constructed in 1996. He indicated that the QAC Zoning Department does not have any record ofan approved permit for the deck the Applicant has requested to replace. Hei identified non-compliance concerns on thej property, and indicated that the Applicant must seek to remedy forest conservation deficiencies by planting one of the following options based upon    107 Rebecca Lane Setback Variance p.3  previously approved forest conservation plans for the Sunnyfields Subdivision: (1) Select at least 2species from those identified (loblolly pine, pin oak, red oak, red bud or hackberry) and plant 75 sedlingsor(0,1.5.2" caliber trees from the list. Spacing shall provide coverage along the extent oft the rear parcel line between lot 1 and lot 4 and extend 35' into the subject parcel from the rear parcel line; and (2) Install required afforestation protection area signage approximately every 50' along the perimeter of the protected area. He noted that the Board has not previously approved  any variances within the Sunnyfields Subdivision to date.  Mr. Olds concluded by stating that Zoning staffh has not received any evidence that outlines Mr. Lesniowski asked Mr. Olds if the non-compliance issues identified re: the forest conservation plans are currently existing or would require compliance for approval. Mr. Olds indicated that they are currently existing from the time the community was developed and exist  the practical difficulty regarding this property.  irrespective of the variance request.  Applicant's Presentation  Mrs. Daniels testified that when she moved in she planted 6 loblollys, a willow tree and a golden tip cypress along the rear property line. She stated that she wasn'taware she had any more  forest conversation area on her property before now.  Eric Daniels, the Applicant's son, testified regarding the variance request. He indicated the Applicant is seeking to replace an existing deck that was constructed in 1997 by Home Depot. He stated that Home Depot was supposed to take care of everything, including the permit, and the Applicant only found out through filing the permit for the replacement deck that there was nothing on record for a permit for the original. He testified the Applicant would like to use the existing area of where the deck was before removal, as it has been landscaped around that area and has improved the value of the property. He further testified that the deck has already been removed  and ifthe Applicant had to go back the 50' there would be barely any deck.  Mr. Lesniowski asked the Applicant what the purpose of the deck was and the Applicant indicated it was for family use and there were not any homes behind their house, as it was farm field. The. Applicant additionally indicated that without the deck the Applicant cannot exit the rear    107 Rebecca Lane Setback Variance p.4  ofthe home as iti is elevated. Mr. Lesniowski commented that ift there was ai fire they would need  the deck for safe ingressegress from the rear of their home.  Mr. Dean indicated that there were safety concerns if the deck was not replaced. Mr. Lesniowski asked the Applicant ift there had been any complaints about the prior deck before its removal and if there were other decks in the neighborhood. The Applicant responded that there were no complaints they were aware of, and other homes near them had decks. Mr. Lesniowski commented that the deck was a very modest footprint and a 5' deck, which is all that would be permitted, would not be usable. The Applicant indicated there was no other location on the back  of the house toj place the deck that would alleviate the need for a variance.  Testimony from the Public  There was no testimony from the public.  Findingsand Conclusions oft the Board  The Board finds the testimony and evidence presented 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 of the  Code, the Board specifically finds and concludes as follows:  1. Without the variance, the Applicant would not have the ability to use the rear oft their 2. The variance will not affect neighboring properties and will have no impact on resource protection provisions. In making this finding, the Board takes into consideration that 3. The variance request is keeping a very modest footprint and is the amount minimally necessary to ameliorate conditions giving rise to any practical difficulty or unnecessary 4. Aliteral enforcement ofthe rear yard setback would result in unnecessary hardship and practical difficulty and those conditions are peculiar to the property involved due to the shape oft the property and are not from an action taken by the Applicant. 5. The variance requested is not contrary to the public interest.  home for ingresslegress.  the neighbors were notified, and no neighbors came to object.  hardship.    107 Rebecca Lane Setback Variance p.5  . - There are no other alternatives that are viable such that the variance is required.  Decision  Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, by a vote of three in favor and none A variance from the provisions ofs $1 181-9E,0)014lem) to permit the Applicant to reduce the required 50 foot rear yard setback to 42 feet to construct a rear deck addition to the  opposed, the Board grants to the Applicant:  existing dwelling.    107 Rebecca Lane Setback Variance p.6  ORDER  For the reasons set forth in the foregoing Opinion, it is this 10th day of September, 2024 ordered that the variance requested for Gary Daniels and Annette Daniels, in Case No.  BOA-24-06-0183, be granted.  damall Howard A. Dean, Chairman  36  Michael A. Lesniowski, Member  AL Scott MacGlashan, Alternate Member    107 Rebecca Lane Setback Variance p.7  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-24-06-0183, for Gary Daniels and Annette Daniels, which Opinion and Order resulted from a public hearing conducted by the Board of Appeals on July 17,2024 and that the minutes and a recording of the. July 17,  2024 meeting are filed in the office ofE Board of Appeals.  Certified this 10th day of September, 2024 by:  Cocly Mapudll Cathy Maxwell' Clerk to the Board of Appeals    BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF QUEEN ANNE'S < COUNTY  In the matter ofApplication by Bryan A. Higgs, Lauren B. Baxter &  Case No. BOA-24-05-0182  *  Jacob S. Baxter for Conditional Use  FINALDECISION OFTHE BOARD  Introduction  The Queen Anne's County Board of Appeals (the "Board") held a meeting on July 17, 2024 at 5:15 p.m. to consider Case No. BOA-24-05-0182 for conditional use approval to operate a2,988 sq. ft. non-fast-food restaurant on approximately 9.016: t acres ofl land dual-zoned Village Center (VC)/Agriculture (AG), located at 5306 Church Hill Road (the "Property") filed by Bryan A. Higgs, Lauren B. Baxter, and Jacob S. Baxter (hereinafter collectively the "Applicant"). The Board members present were Chairman, Howard Dean, Board Member Michael A. Lesniowski,  and Alternate Member, Scott MacGlashan.  At the beginning of the hearing, the Board established that all requirements were met governing the filing of the conditional use application, and proper notice of the July 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 thej provisions ofs 18:1-25.C.(15) ofthe Code of! Public Local Laws ofQueen Anne's County (the "Code"), to operate a 2,988 sq. ft. non-fast-food restaurant out of the building located on the Property. The proposed restaurant and all accessory elements are located within the VC-zoned portion of the Property. Non-fast-food restaurants are permitted asa açonditional usei int the' VCzoning district pursuant to $ 18:1-25.C.(15)  of the Code.    Baxter p.2  Conditional Use-Non-Fast-Food Restaurant Tax Map 16, Parcel 9, Lot2  Applicable Provisions of the Code  The standards the Board must apply to the Applicant's request for conditional use are set forth in S 18:1-94 oft 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 ordinançe 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 sitesor 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 application and as a condition ofapproval ofthe 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:    Baxter p.3  Conditional Use Non-Fast-Food Restaurant Tax Map 16, Parcel 9, Lot2  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.  Policies;  Timing oft the implementation of the plan;  Timing of development; Timing oft rezoning; Development patterns; Land uses; and Densities or intensities.  Property Description and Department of Planning & Zoning Recommendations Doug Summers, Associate Planner with the Department of Planning & Zoning, presented his staff report. He identified the Property as Queen Anne's County Tax Map 16, Parcel 9, Lot 2, located in the northwest portion of the County, approximately 1 % miles north of Church Hill. He testified that the Parcel is split-zoned, being AG to the north and VC along MD Rt. 213. He said the Applicant is seeking conditional use approval to operate a non-fast-food restaurant, under medium commercial use, in an existing building on-site. He indicated that the proposed use and any accessory elements are in the VC zoned portion of property. He said that there are no  environmental resources on the property.  Mr. Summers said that the existing building located on the property is 2,988 sq. ft, and was previously operated as the restaurant known as Nonna Maria's. Hei indicated that landscaping was recently updated to match previous site plan approval andi isi in compliance with same. He testified that all parking and other required standards are met on site, with one single point ofingress/egress off MD Rt. 213, and any other points of entry blocked off for safety reasons to eliminate access points. He stated that the current lessee of the building intends to use the commercial kitchen for his foodi truck operation which falls undernon-fast-food restaurant use. He further stated that there is no indoor seating proposed at this time, but the approved use would permitit. He indicated that Environmental Health is requiring standard food operation documents as part of and before issuance of a use permit; however, no objections were raised by any other revieing agencies. He    Baxter p.4  Conditional Use Non-Fast-Food Restaurant Tax Map 16, Parcel 9, Lot2  further testified that this project meets the 2022 Comprehensive Plan in regards to smart growth, mixed use development, and cupanoyrdevelcpmen. of vacant commercial space.  He concluded by stating that staff does not object to the Board of Appeals granting conditional use approval to the Applicant to operate a 2,988 sq. ft. non-fast-food restaurant under medium commercial use in the VC zoning district with the conditions as presented in the staff  report.  Following a question asked by Mr. MacGlashan, Mr. Summers indicated that the second entrance at the property was blocked by the owner, and in talks with the Department of Public Works, they would prefer that it be closed for safety reasons; however, State Highway had no  objection.  Board Member MacGlashan provided history, as he recalled it, relative to the original  approval of the property as a Country Store several years prior.  Applicant's Presentation  Mr. Roger L'Heureux testified as the tenant of the property, that he will operate his food truck on site and utilize the commercial kitchen located in the building. He testified that no changes are anticipated to the building. He explained that to run a food truck, it requires a  commercial kitchen to operate out of.  Mr. Summers clarified upon questions of the Board, that the Queen Anne's County Code does not have any provision for food trucks and/or prep kitchens, sO historically the Board and Planning and Zoning have determined that it falls under non-fast-food restaurant for approval  purposes.  Mrs. Lauren Baxter testified, as the owner of the property, that the current lease as written will only permit the use of the commercial kitchen in combination with a food truck. In the event that the lessee desires indoor seating and more traditional restaurant operation, the lessee and  owner will have to re-negotiate the lease terms.  The Applicant testified the food truck operations are anticipated to be open 7 days a week.    Baxter p.5  Conditional Use - Non-Fast-Food Restaurant Tax Map 16, Parcel 9, Lot2  Testimony from the Public  After the Applicant presented his case, Chairman Dean asked ifany members oft the public Ms. Nancy Lane, owner of adjacent property, testified in favor of the Applicant's request. She testified that the food being sold is wonderful and she would eventually love to see the inside open as well. She indicated that the tenant goes out of their way to do good for the public.  wished to testify.  No one testified in opposition.  Findings and Conclusions of the Board  Based on the evidence presented, and duly considering the applicable factors from the 1. For those reasons as specifically identified in the staff report entered into evidence, the Board finds the application is consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives, and standards ofthe Comprehensive Plan, this Chapter 18:1, and any other plan, program, map 2. For those reasons and others testified to on the record, the proposed use at the proposed location will not result in a substantial or undue adverse impact on adjacent property, the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, parking, public improvements, public sites or rights-of-way, or other matters affecting public health, safety or general welfare. 3. The proposed use at the location will be adequately served by, and will not impose an undue burden on, any oft the required improvements referred to in Chapter 18:1.  Queen Anne's County Code, the Board finds and concludes as follows:  adopted or under consideration by the County.  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 pursuant to $ 18:1-19. C. (15) of the Code to operate a non- fast-food restaurant at the subject property located at 5306 Church Hill Rd. near Church Hilll MD in the 2nd Election District and located in the VCzoning district, subject to the  following conditions:    Baxter p.6  Conditional Use - Non-Fast-Food Restaurant Tax Map 16, Parcel 9, Lot2  Any remaining edits and/or documents required by Planning & Zoning be  reviewed and approved;  Noe extended/overnight parking on-site; business with the restaurant;  Parking is limited to restaurant patrons, employees, and those conducting The applicant provides a revised floor plan, any new equipment specifications, a menu, and a new license application with Environmental Health prior to use  permit issuance from the Zoning Department.    Baxter p.7  Conditional Use - Non-Fast-Food Restaurant Tax Map 16, Parcel 9, Lot2  ORDER  For the reasons set forth in the foregoing Opinion, itist this 13th day of September, 2024, ordered that the conditional use approval requested for Bryan A. Higgs, Lauren H. Baxter and Jacob S. Baxter, in Case No. BOA-24-05-0182, be granted, subject to the conditions set  forthi in the Opinion.  damnlla Howard A. Dean, Chairman  Michael A. Lesniowski, Member  AL  Scott MacGlashan, Alternate Member    Baxter p.8  Conditional Use-Non-Fast-Fod Restaurant Tax Map 16, Parcel 9, Lot2  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-24-05-0182, for Bryan A. Higgs, Lauren B. Baxter and Jacob S. Baxter, which Opinion and Order resulted from a public hearing conducted by the Board of Appeals on July 17, 2024 and that the minutes and a recording of the July 17, 2024 meeting are filed in the office of Board of Appeals.  Certified this 13th day of September, 2024 by:  Coluy Malow Cathy Maxwell Clerk to the Board of Appeals    BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY  In the matter of Application by Network Towers, II, LLC, Lessee ofl land owned by TMP Ventures, LLC For conditional use & variance  Case No. BOA-24-03-0175  FINALDECISION: OF THE BOARD  Introduction  The Queen Anne's County Board of Appeals (the "Board") held a meeting on July 21, 2024 at 6:00 p.m. to consider Case No. BOA-24-03-0175 for conditional use approval to construct al 174-foot-tall elecommunications facility (monopole) and associated equipment within a 2,400 sq. ft. gravel compound located at 1415 Sonny Schulz Boulevard in Stevensville, MD in the 4th Election District (the Property"). The Applicant also seeks to reduce the required setbacks of the tower and a variance from the recreational area setback. The application was filed by Network Towers, II, LLC, Lessee ofland owned by TMP Ventures, LLC (hereinafter the "Applicant"). The Board members present were Chairman, Howard A. Dean, Member, Michael Lesniowski and  Alternate Member, Scott MacGlashan.  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 was given oft the July 21, 2024 public hearing. Board Chairman, Howard Dean, administered the oath to all who wished to  testify on the application, including the Applicant. II. Applicant's Request  The Applicant is seeking conditional-use approval under the provisions of $18:1- 23(C).(12) and $18:1-95(B).(6) of the Code of Public Local Laws of Queen Anne's County (the "Code"), to construct a 174-foot-tall telecommunications facility (monopole) and associated equipment within a 2,400 sq. ft. equipment compound, reduced setbacks from the tower to the property lines pursuant to $ 181-95.B(6/0)5l0), and a variance for a 10-foot reduction of the    Network Towers II, LLC  Conditional Use-Telecommumnications Tower  p.2  required 200' setback from any public park or recreational area pursuant to $ 18:1-95.B(lI)and $  18:1-121.  III. Applicable Provisions of the Code A. $18:1-94- General Use Standards To approve the conditional use, the board must find:  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 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.  consideration pursuant to official notice, by the County.  3.  The proposed use at the proposed location willl be adequately served by, and will not impose an undue burden on, any oft the required improvements referred to int 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 acondition 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 andi inamanner consistent with the Comprehensive' Plan, this Chapter 18:1, and other plans, programs, maps, and ordinances adopted by  the County.  B. $18:1-95B.(6) - Specific Use Criteria for Telecommunication tower  The Applicant must demonstrate the following specific criteria to the Board prior to approval  ofan application for a new elecommunications tower:  1.  Collocation is not a reasonably feasible alternative to the a. Collocation would exceed the structural capability of any existing commercial or publicly owned alcomunicalo/aclo, building, or other structure that would provide the effective signal coverage sought by the applicant, including structures that have been approved but have not been constructed. The Board of Appeals must find that such structures cannot be modified or reinforced to accommodate planned or equivalent equipment at a reasonable cost;  proposed elecommunications tower, according to the following criteria:    Network Towers II, LLC  Conditional Use -Telecommunications Tower  p.3  b. Existing commercial or publicly owned elecommunications facilities, including those that have been approved but are not yet constructed, do not have space on which the proposed elecommunications facilities can be placed sO as to function Collocation cannot be accomplished either without causing significant deterioration of visual appearance with respect to bulk and height, or that such Thate each oft the following location, design and landscaping standards has been met. a. Illumination. No signal, lights, or illumination shall be permitted on a proposed b. Signage. No signage shall be permitted that is not required by FCC on Sites of significant public interest. Telecommunications facilities shall not unreasonably interfere with the view of, or from, sites ofs significant public interest, such as a public park, a state-designated scenic road, or a state-designated d. Building height. Telecommunications facilities shall not exceed height limitations set forthi in this Chapter 18:1, Part 3, Article V. Telecommunications facilities may locate on a building that is legally nonconforming with respect to height, provided that the facilities do not project above the existing building height. The building height oflelecommunications equipment buildings shall not exceed 15 feet.  effectively; and  deterioration cannot be remedied by camouflaging the facility.  2.  facility unless required by the FCC or the FAA.  the elecommumications, facility.  historic. site.  Setbacks.  Al elecommunications facility shall be set back from all property lines a distance equal to the height of the tower. Upon a showing by the applicant that the proposed elecommunications tower is structurally engineered in such a manner that a reduced fall zone is adequate, the Board of Appeals may reduce the facility setback to no less than 1/2 the height of the proposed tower plus 10 feet. Such a showing must be based on the written testimony ofas structural engineer or other qualified professional. ii. All lattice towers and guy towers shall be at least 300 feet from any residential structure. Telecommumications, facilities shall be situated at least iii. Guy wire anchors shall be setback at least 20 feet from any property line.  200 feet from any public park or recreational area.    Network Towers II, LLC  Conditional Use-T Telecommunications Tower  p.4  Future collocations. The elecommunications facility shall be constructed SO as to provide adequate capacity for the future collocation of at least five commercial or publicly owned carriers for towers equal to or more than 175 feet height or three commercial or publicly owned carriers for towers less than 175 feet height. The Board of Appeals may allow a reduction in this requirement upon a showing that full compliance is not reasonably possible due to structural, financial, or aesthetic conçerns, or that full compliance would result in violation of a provision of Tower color. Telecommunications towers shall be gray or a color that minimizes h. Camouflaging. Commercially available technology shall be employed to minimize tower visibility, with specific reference to size, color, and silhouette properties. Camouflaging shall be required SO that the elecommunications facility is not readily visible from an adjacent property. However, this requirement may be waived or modified where the applicant demonstrates that camouflaging is financially or structurally unreasonable or otherwise prohibits a telecommunications carrier from providing service within the County. Such demonstration must be supported by submission of a statement of position, qualifications, and experience by a licensed radio frequency engineer. Landscaping. Plant materials should be used toi improve site aesthetics by buffering the base of the towers and elecommumications equipment buildings. Security Security fence. A fence or wall not less than eight feet in height from finished grade shall be installed sO as to enclose the base of any proposed lelecommumications tower and equipment building. Access to the tower shall be controlled by a locked gate. The fence or wall shall be ofwood construction and shall be designed sO as to k. Telecommumications equipment buildings. Equipment buildings not completely screened by a security fence shall have pitched roofs and shall be constructed of either masonry or wood, with wood, vinyl, reinforced concrete, or other good quality siding material. All utilities not located within an equipment shelter or otherwise completely screened by a security fence shall be placed underground.  Chapter 18.  visibility, unless the FCC or the FAA requires a different color.  fencing should be attractive and of high-quality material.  blend with the surrounding area.  C.$18:1-123.B.  Requires the Board to make the following additional findings to approveac conditional use: The conditions concerning that conditional use as detailed in this The conditional use conforms to the Comprehensive Plan; and  1. Chapter 18:1 exist; 2.    Network Towers II, LLC  Conditional Use - Telecommunications Tower  p.5  3.  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 ofa conditional use must further, and not be contrary to, the following items in the Queen Anne's County Comprehensive Plan: Policies; Timing ofthe implementation of the plan; Timing of development; Timing of rezoning; Development patterns;  Land uses; and Densities or intensities.  D. $1 18:1-121.B.  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 ofa any action taken by the appellant; The variance will not be contrary to the public interest; and Evaluation ofa 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.  E. $18:1-95B(11)  Additionally, to grant a variance from the recreational trail setback requirements, the Board  must also find ONE oft the following:  1. That failure to grant the variance would prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the 2. That failurei to grant the variance would unreasonably discriminate among the providers 3. That the variance would obviate the need for additional telecommunications towers;  provision of personal wireless service;  of functionally equivalent personal wireless service;    Network Towers II,I LLC  Conditional Use - Telecommunications Tower  p.6  4. That the variance is necessary to ensure adequate public safety and emergency 5. That the variance is the minimum necessary in order for the appliçant to provide  management communications; or  broadcast services pursuant to an FCC-issued construction permit.  IV. Property Description and Department of Planning & Zoning Recommendations Doug Summers, Associate Planner with the Department of Planning & Zoning, presented his staff report. He testified that the Applicant is seeking conditional use approval to construct a elecommunications facility, and a variance to reduce the required setbacks from both the tower to public park or recreational area and from the tower to the property lines. Specifically, the Applicant is proposing to construct a 2,400 sq. ft. equipment compound to include a 174' tall monopole structure for telecommunication antennas, equipment cabinet and concrete pads for support equipment and future tenant space. He indicated the property isl located in the western part of the County in Kent Island, approximately 2 miles south of the Bay Bridge Airport. He more specifically identified the Property as Tax Map 56, Parcel 221,Lot 6, located at 1415 Sonny Schulz Boulevard, Stevensville, MD on the west side of Romancoke Rd., within the Matapeake Business  Park.  The Property is zoned Suburban Industrial (SI). Mr. Summers testified that there are no wetlands or USGS identified streams on site. He said that the site has 2.6 sq. ft. of IDA critical area but it is not located by the tower lease area or access area. He testified that this tower is proposed to be part of a 2 tower development plan to address coverage issues on the mid-Kent Island Area, with the second tower being currently under review by the Department and proposed to be located at the Elks Lodge further down Romancoke Rd. With regard to co-location, he identified. a state-owned tower that currently has structural capacity issues and no upgrade potential for Verizon; additionally there is a water tower nearby that lacks the necessary height and has space constraints. He stated that other parcels were looked at for placement of this tower but they had environmental or zoning constraints. The lease areai ist to be accessed via a2 25' access easement witha 12' gravel lane within that area that will stem offoftheexisting parking lot ofthe warehouse building on site. He indicated that sighting was based on property line setbacks, future  development plans, and the recreational trail to the south.    Network Towers II, LLC  Conditional Use - Telecommunications Tower  p.7  With respect to the variance request, Mr. Summers testified that the site is constrained by both property line setbacks and the recreational trail setback. He indicated the recreational trail setback is 200: ft.; however, the Applicant is seeking a 10' reduction to same. He stated the Code permits the BOA to grant a variance to the setback ifc certain criteria are met, which he outlined in his staff report entered as Planning and Zoning Ex. #1. He further indicated the Applicant is also requesting a reduction of the property line setback. He testified that pursuant to $18:1- 95.B.6)(b)[5]la), the Board has the authority to reduce the facility setback to no less than % the height oft the proposed tower plus 10 feet upon a showing by the Applicant that the proposed tower iss structurally engineered in such a manner that a reduced fall zone is adequate by providing an engineer letter, which the Applicant has provided. He indicated that 97' is the max that could be granted by the Board and the Applicant is seeking a reduced setback of9 98' to the nearest property  line.  Mr. Summers testified that because ofthe 10' requested setback, the Applicant proposes to add 2' of lattice to the required fencing and additional evergreen screening where the recreational trail is, to boost visual aid. He said the Applicant proposes no lighting or signage except what is required by the FCC and the gates and fencing all meet County Code. He testified that the Applicant did their balloon test and only 4 of25 sites showed the tower as visible. He indicated that in testing, the Applicant gave preference to sites based on residential developments, schools, and parks. He stated that Verizon is proposed as the anchor tenant with other future tenant space for future collocations. He indicated the Department has received all required documentation from  the Applicant.  He stated that no objections have been raised by any reviewing agency in regards to the conditional use request. Hei testified that the project as proposed is consistent with the 2022 County Comprehensive Plan, specifically as it relates to increasing broadband technology in rural areas, County telecommunication and infrastructure improvements, and accommodating growth to attract high tech jobs in addition to preserving rural landscapes with adequate screening and  setbacks.  Further, as provided in Mr. Summers' staffreport, the site is un-manned and traffic impacts will be minimal. Thet tower color is proposed as galvanized steel and gray in color, and as proposed    Network Towers II, LLC  Conditional Use Telecommunications Tower  p.8  it is similar in style and size to other towers located within the County. To require additional camouflaging would limit functionality and coverage objections and ultimately create a need for additional towers within the County. Hisr report indicated that Applicant proposed evergreen plants to provide screening and a buffer around the perimeter along with a 8-10' board on board wooden  fence with three (3) security gates.  Mr. Summers concluded by stating that staffoffers no objection or concerns to the variance requests made by the Applicant and supports the Board of Appeals in granting the conditional use as requested by the Applicant with those conditions as identified in the staff report.  V. Applicant's Presentation  Joseph Stevens, attorney and agent on behalf of the Applicant, presented the application. First, Mr. Stevens noted that Mr. Summers certified that the Applicant met all submittal requirements per the Code and that the Planning and Zoning Department is tasked with reviewing submittals for completeness prior to submitting applications to the Board. Mr. Stevens gave an overview oft the witnesses he intended to call to testify regarding the application.  First, Mr. Stevens called Mr. Jim Golden. Mr. Golden testified that he was an employee of Verizon wireless for 25 years and senior manager responsible for all the macro cell sites and citing towers in the Washington DC.MD/Northern VA area for 20 years. He began working for Network Towers 5 years ago after retiring from Verizon. Network Towers is a subsidiary of Network Building Consulting, which for over 40 years has worked with the major carriers on site acquisition, and construction management. He was hired by Verizon to find a solution for the Matapeake tower solution (which he built in 2004 with his team with Verizon). The Matapeake tower was turned over to the state; however, they have had issues maintaining it and the existing tower is over-stressed by 200%. To fix it would cost over $600,000.00 and it is a 300 ft. tower and Verizon hasn't been able to change equipment for over 20 years and that has caused major service issues in the area. He looked at co-locating on the water tower, about 500' from the Matapeake tower, but there are other carriers on the water tank and Verizon was not able to get additional space and was unable to permit remote radio heads or it would have blocked the  walkway around the railing.    Network Towers II, LLC  Conditional Use Telecommunications Tower  p.9  In order to provide equivalent wireless service for Verizon customers, the decision was made that they would have to build a new tower. He looked at 15 properties in the area, worked with the Department with issues in the area, a lotofwetland, Critical Area and Historic Issues, and really only came up with the Industrial Park as the only place to put it. Itis the best solution and location in a suburban industrial park. Verizon commissioned a structural engineering report to look at the existing tower and it came back failing and the costs for fixing it are too prohibitive for  the benefit given the towers limitations.  Mr. Golden testified that for the variance request for the 10' setback from the recreational trail, he worked a lot with the staff and did 6-7 different variations and it was decided that it was the best location and well hidden by a large swath oftrees. He further testified that the 10' would not cause any visual differences for the users oft the trail, and they cannot meet the setback without a variance as the owner of the property has expansion plans that prohibit where the tower can be placed. He indicated that to relocate the trail, the Applicant would need to take out a substantial amount of trees and that was not feasible or desired in lieu of the variance request.  He testified that the site will allow for three additional wireless carriers, and Verizon has been working with local fire departments who use Verizon service for their I-pads and they have  aneed to connect for adequate public safety in the area.  Mr. Stevens testified regarding the practical difficulty standard and the history of the Business Park starting in 1997, when it started out as the "Bay Model" and presented three photos depicting the changes over the years (entered as Applicant Exhibit7 7). He stated that by 2013, after the County acquired the property, it put millions of dollars of improvements in to build the  Business Park, and the trial was there before those improvements were made. existing tower once the new tower was built, and hei indicated they would.  Member Lesniowski asked Mr. Golden if Verizon would remove the equipment from the Mr. Stevens identified the structural engineer for the project and referenced his report as tab 14 in Applicant's Exhibit 1 and offered the Board the ability to ask the Engineer any questions that they need. Member MacGlashan asked about the fall zone, and it was indicated by the  Applicant that ift the tower were to fall it would fall within the area identified.    Network Towers II, LLC  Conditional Use - Telecommunications Tower  p.10  Member MacGlashan asked about radio frequency interference, and Mr. Stevens pointed the members to tab 6 of Applicant'sl Exhibit 1, where Verizon Wireless indicated that there would be noi interference, and they will not operate on any frequency owned or used by the Anne Arundel  County emergency system.  Mr. Stevens ended his presentation, by reminding the Board that the project is a two-tower solution, and the Applicant will be back in a few months for a tower south of here which will be  the mid-tower solution.  VI. Testimony from the Public  After the Applicant presented their case, Chairman Dean asked ifany members oft the  public wished to testify, to which there was no response. VII. Findings and Conclusions of the Board  A. The Board finds the testimony and application provided by the Applicant credible and persuasive. The Board concludes that the evidence justifies approval of the conditional use request. Based on the evidence presented, and duly considering the applicable factors from the Queen Anne's County Code, the Board specifically finds and  concludes as follows:  1. The Applicant established the criteria required by $18:1-95B.(6) for those reasons as set forthi in the Queen Anne'sCounty StaffReport pp.5- 2. The Applicant submitted all documents and materials required to  7.  receive approval of the conditional use.  B. For those reasons as specifically identified in the staff report entered into evidence, and inc consideration of the evidence presented by the Applicant, without opposition, the  Board finds:  1. The application is consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives, and standards ofthe Comprehensive Plan, this Chapter 18:1, and any other plan, program, map adopted orl under consideration by the  County.    Network Towers II, LLC  Conditional Use Telecommunications Tower  p.11  2. Thej proposed use at the proposed location will not result in as substantial or undue adverse impact on adjacent property, the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, parking, public mprovements, public sites or rights-of-way, or other matters affecting public health, safety or 3. The proposed use at the location will be adequately served by, and will not impose an undue burden on, any of the required improvements 4. The proposed use is compatible with the existing neighborhood.  general welfare.  referred to in Chapter 18:1.  C. The Board finds the testimony and application provided by the Applicant credible and persuasive. 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. A literal enforcement of the recreational trail setback would result in 2. The conditions creating the need for the setback are peculiar to the property involved and not the result ofany action taken by the applicant. 3. The variance is not contrary to the public interest. 4. There are no alternative options, such that a variance is required.  practical difficulty.  D. Additionally, after considering the applicable factors, the Board finds that a variance from the recreational trail setback requirements is appropriate and for those reasons as presented by the. Applicant, without opposition, the Applicant has met the requirements  of 18:1-955(0)0))0. and specifically finds:  1. That failure to grant the variance would prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless service; 2. That failure to grant the variance would unreasonably discriminate among the providers of functionally equivalent personal wireless  service;    Network Towers II, LLC  Conditional Use - Telecommunications Tower  p.12  3. That the variance would obviate the need for additional 4. That the variance is necessary to ensure adequate public safety and 5. That the variancei is the minimum necessary in order for the applicant to provide broadcast services pursuant to an FCC-issued construction  telecommunications towers;  emergency management communications; or  permit.  VIII. Decision  Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, by a vote of three in favor and none  opposed, the Board grants to the Applicant:  1. Conditional use approval pursuant to $918:1-23(0.12); 18:1-92. 18:94 and $18:1-95(B) to construct a 174' telecommunications facility (monopole) and associated equipment within a 30 ft. x 80 ft. gravel compound, subject to the following conditions: a. The Applicant shall obtain all necessary Federal, State and County permits as b. Building permit submission requirements under $18:1-95B.5) must be met. Any outstanding comments stemming from agency reviews are addressed. d. Any required bonds, sureties, review, and inspection fees must be submitted to the e. At least one legally binding service agreement between the owner of the proposed facility and one service provider must be executed and provided to the Department The tower and all site elements shall substantially reflect the concept plan reviewed Noc commercial advertising or other signage, except that required, shall be permitted on the monopole. The monopole shall have a single sign, no larger than six square feet, affixed to the equipment building or fence enclosure that identifies the tower owner, each locating provider, FCC tower registration number, and the telephone  applicable.  Department of Planning and Zoning as appropriate.  of Planning and Zoning prior to issuance ofal building permit.  and approved by the Board of Appeals.  number for the person to contact in the event of an emergency.    Network Towers II, LLC  Conditional Use-Tetcommunisations Tower  p.13  h. The monopole shall be the proposed color ora a color that minimizes visibility unless a different color is required by the FCC. Commercially available technology shall be employed to minimize tower visibility, with specific reference to size, color, and Ther monopole shalll be used continuously for wireless communications. In the event that the monopole ceases to be used for a period of six months, the conditional use approval shall be revoked. In the event that the County Zoning Administrator is presented with evidence that further viability of the monopole is imminent, the Zoning Administrator may grant one extension of the conditional use approval for aj period not to exceed six months beyond the revocation of the use. The Applicant shall take all necessary steps to dismantle the monopole and remove and dispose of all remnants and materials, including concrete or masonry foundations, from the subject parcel within 90 days after termination. The Applicant shall ensure removal of the monopole and all associated accessory structures by posting a monetary guarantee with the County. The guarantee shall be submitted prior to the issuance ofa building permit and shall be for an amount of $50,000, a cost that is equal to  silhouette properties.  the estimate of removal of the facility, plus a 15% contingency.  2. A variance to reduce the required setback for the monopole from the property line by one half, with breakpoint technology, by one half the distance plus 10 foot oft the pole pursuant 3. A variance from the provisions of to $ 18.1-95.B.6X0X5)0) to permit the Applicant to reduce the 200 ft. tower setbacks from any public park or recreational area by 10ft.  10518.1-95BX6,01514:    Network Towers II, LLC  Conditional Use - Telecommunications Tower  p.14  ORDER  For the reasons set forth in the foregoing Opinion, itis this_ 30th day of September, 2024, ordered that the conditional use approval requested for Network Towers II, LLC, Lessee of land owned by TMP Ventures, LLC, in Case No. BOA-24-03-0175, be granted, subject to the  conditions set forth in the Opinion.  dmalla Howard A. Dean, Chairman  Michael A. Lesniowski, Member  - 1  - - -  Scott MacGlashan, Alternate Member    Network Towers II, LLC  Conditional Use Telecommunications Tower  p.15  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-24-03-0175, for Network Towers II, LLC, Lessee ofland owned by TMP Ventures, LLC, which Opinion and Order resulted from aj public hearing conducted by the Board of Appeals on July 17,2024 and that the minutes and a recording oft the July 17, 2024 meeting are filed in the office of] Board of  Appeals.  Certified this 30th day of September, 2024 by:  frecdu Makwl  Cathy Maxwell Clerk to the Board of Appeals