BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY In the matter of Application by Case No. BOA-24-12-0202 James J. Obermeier & * Lisa M. Casiello Obermeier * for Zoning Variance FINAL DECISION OF THE BOARD Introduction The Queen Anne's County Board of Appeals (the "Board") held a meeting on March 19. 2025 at 5:00 p.m. to consider Case No. BOA-24-12-0202 for a variance application filed by James J. Obermeier and Lisa M. Casiello Obermeier (hereinafter collectively the "Applicant"). The Board members present were Vice-Chairman, Craig McGinnes, and Alternate Board Members Scott McGlashan and Barry Waterman. At the beginning of the hearing, the Board established that all requirements were met governing the filing ofthe variance application, and proper notice ofthe March 19th public hearing. Board Vice-Chairman McGinnes 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 S 18:1-41 of the Code of Public Local Laws of Queen Anne's County (the "Code"), to reconstruct a 291ft. X 6 ft. pier with a 10 ft X. 20 ft. platform and two (2) boatlifts with associated piles and one (1) mooring pile with a total pier length of approximately 301 ft. from the mean high water line. The Applicant's property is located at 3111 Bennett Point Rd., and is part oft the Bennett Point Subdivision created in 1973 and near Queenstown, MD (hereinafter the "Property"). The Property is located in the Neighborhood Conservation-5 (NC-5) Zoning District and Critical Area Limited Development Area (LDA). The Applicant submitted a Zoning Certificate Application (No. Z24-08-0363) to remove an existing 301' pier and associated structures, and replace with a 291' X 6' pier with a 10' X 20' platform, two (2) boat lifts and associated pilings, including a guide piling. On November 13, 3111 Bennet Point Rd. - Obermeier Pier Variance p. 2 2024, the Queen Anne's County Zoning Inspector denied the Applicant's Zoning Certificate Application after determining that the Planning & Zoning Office had no record of the issuance of a prior certificate/permit and the proposed pier and associated structures will exceed the 150' length allowed by the Code pursuant to $18-1-041. Applicable Provisions ofthe 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. Literal enforcement of this Chapter 18:1 would result in unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty as the result of specified conditions; 2. Those conditions are peculiar to the property involved; 3. Those conditions are not the result of any action taken by the appellant; 4. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest; and 5. Evaluation of alternatives proves variance is required. Pursuant to $18:1-121.C., the Board shall consider the following in deciding whether to grant a variance: 1. Ability to use the property for any reasonable purpose, whether or not such purpose is desired by the appellant, in the absence of the proposed variance 2. The degree to which the proposed variance will affect adjacent property owners 3. Impact of the proposed variance upon the resource protection provisions of Part 4, Article IX, ofChapter 18:1 4. The degree to which the situation might be more properly addressed by amending this Chapter 18:1 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. 3111 Bennet Point Rd. - Obermeier Pier Variance p.3 3 Property Description and Department of Planning & Zoning Recommendations Joshua McCauley, Zoning Inspector with the Department ofPlanning & Zoning, presented his staff report. Mr. McCauley testified that the Applicant is proposing to construct a 291' X 6' pier with a 10' X 20' platform and two boatlifts with associated piles and one additional mooring pile, for a total pier length of 301'. He said that the Applicant has requested a variance to extend the distance the pier may extend into the water from 150' to 301.' Mr. McCauley identified the Property as being in the Fifth Election District of Queen Anne's County and located on the northeastern corner ofthe intersection of Bennett Point Rd. and Ice House Point Dr. in the Bennett Point Subdivision which was established in 1973. He stated the property is further identified as Tax Map 77, Parcel 4, Lot 23, and consists of a 5.03 acres and is located within the NC-5 zoning district. He stated that the dwelling on the property was constructed in 1978 and the pier first appears in QAC aerials in 1989. He stated that the aerials further indicate that the pier reached its current length of 301' in 2004; however, the Planning & Zoning Office has no record of approval for the original pier or for its current length and improvements. He indicated that the proposed pier is consistent with the approval the Applicant received from the Maryland Department oft the Environment. Mr. McCauley stated that on March 22, 2017, the Board approved a pier extension to a maximum of301' on the neighboring property of107 Ice House Point Dr. He concluded by stating that Planning & Zoning staff has not received any evidence that outlines the practical difficulty regarding this property. Applicant's Presentation Mr. Obermeier testified that without the requested pier extension, he would not have enough water to get in and out to use his boat and the pier would be useless. He stated that he is asking to put back what was there since 2017 when they bought the property. He testified that he has a 26' Regulator that draws 31" of water, and he bought the property largely because of the pier. Mr. Obermeier indiçated the current pier has significant maintenance issues and at high tide the current dock is underwater. He stated he is seeking to raise the pier to get the electrical 3111 Bennet Point Rd. Obermeier Pier Variance p. 4 components out ofthe water in addition to necessary repairs due to rotted stringers and there is no light at the end oft the dock as a result of the electrical concerns. In response to a question by Board counsel, Mr. Obermeier testified that the depth of the water at the lift is 3' and the pier length of 301' is the minimum amount necessary to permit him to get his boat on and off the lift at low tide. He stated that his pier will not affect his neighbors' ability to utilize their pier. Testimony from the Public Jay Falstad with Queen Anne's Conservation Association testified in opposition to the requested pier extension. He stated that he is generally opposed to pier extensions beyond 300' and ift the Board were to regularly grant such requests, it would negatively impact the aesthetics of the County and there would be significant navigational issues in general, though he admitted there was not a navigational issue with this specific request. In response to a question by Member Waterman, Mr. Falstad stated that he had not considered whether there was a difference with a request to replace an existing pier versus a request to install a new pier at such length and he would have to consider it more to state his position. Mr. Obermeier testified in rebuttal to Mr. Falstad, indicating that his neighbors have piers and there is no issue with navigating the waterway in this location. He further stated that all surrounding properties have piers SO there will be no issues in the future related to same. Findings and Conclusions of 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. There is a difference between replacing what is already built, and asking for something new that has never existed before. 2. The electrical lines underwater is a significant safety concern to the Applicant and stray swimmers and a light at the end of the pier is necessary for proper safety. 3111 Bennet Point Rd. - Obermeier Pier Variançe p.5 3. Without the variance, the Applicant would not have the ability to use his boat and pier. 4. The variance will improve the safety conditions at the property. 5. Amending Chapter 18 is not a viable option for the Applicant. 6. The variance will not affect neighboring properties and will have no impact on resource protection provisions. 7. A literal enforcement of the pier length provisions of the Code would result in unnecessary hardship and practical difficulty and those conditions are peculiar to the property involved and are not from an action taken by the Applicant. 8. The variance requested is not contrary to the public interest. 9. There are no other alternatives that are viable such that the variance is required. 10. The length requested is the minimum amount necessary to ameliorate the conditions present. Decision Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, by a vote of three in favor and none opposed, the Board grants to the Applicant a variance to reconstruct a 291 ft. x 6 ft. pier with 10 ft. X 20 ft. platform and two (2) boatlifts with associated piles and one (1) mooring pile with a total pier length ofa approximately 301 ft. from the mean high water line which exceeds the required 150 ft. limit. With the conditions that the pier have a light at the end and that the pilings on the left hand side, facing the water, are removed. 3111 Bennet Point Rd. - Obermeier Pier Variance p. 6 ORDER For the reasons set forth in the foregoing Opinion, it is this 7th day of May, 2025, ordered that the variance requested for James J. Obermeier and Lisa M. Obermeier, in Case No. BOA-24-12-0202, be granted, subject to the conditions set forth in the Opinion. Cwns Craig W. McGinnes, Acting Chairman - - - Barry Waterman, Alternate Member - 59 a Scott MacGlashan, Alternate Member 3111 Bennet Point Rd. - Obermeier Pier Variance p. 7 State of Maryland, County of Queen Anne's: I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Opinion and Order ofthe Board of Appeals of Queen Anne's County in Case No. Boa-24-12-0202, for James J. Obermeier and Lisa M. Obermeier, which Opinion and Order resulted from a public hearing conducted by the Board of Appeals on March 19, 2025 and that the minutes and a recording oft the March 19, 2025 meeting are filed in the office of Board of Appeals. Certified this 7th day of May, 2025 by: Codey Mduel Cathy Maxwell Clerk to the Board of Appeals BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF OUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY In the matter of Application by Case No. BOA-24-04-0180 Byler Materials, LLC for Conditional Use FINALI DECISION OF THE BOARD I. Introduction The Queen Anne's County Board of Appeals (the "Board") held a meeting on March 19, 2025 at 5:15 p.m. to consider Case No. BOA-24-04-0180 filed by Byler Materials, LLC ("Applicant"), for conditional use approval for a 19-acre expansion of an existing major extraction operation. The subject property is zoned Agricultural (AG) and located on Goldsboro Road, in Barclay, MD (the "Property"). The Board members present were Vice-Chairman, Craig McGinnes, and Alternate Board Members Scott McGlashan and Barry Waterman. At the beginning of the hearing, the Board established that all requirements were met governing the filing of the conditional use application, and proper notice of the March 19th public hearing. Vice-Chairman McGinnes 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 $18:1-14.C.(7) and $18:1-95.E for a 19-acre expansion of an existing major extraction operation in the. AG zoning district. III. Applicable Provisions of the Code 1. The general standards the Board must apply to the. Applicant's 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: a. The proposed use at the proposed location shall be consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives, and standards oft 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. b. 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 1 conditions, parking, public improvements, public sites or rights-of-way, or other matters affecting the public health, safety, and general welfare. C. 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: I, 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 of the application and as a condition of approval 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. 2. Section 18:1-95.E identifies specific standards for a major extraction operation. 3. Section 18:1-123.B requires the Board to make the following findings to approve a conditional use: a. The conditions concerning that conditional use as detailed in this Chapter 18:1 exist; b. The conditional use conforms to the Comprehensive Plan; and C. 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: a. Policies; b. Timing of the implementation of the plan; C. Timing of development; d. Timing of rezoning; e. Development patterns; f. Land uses; and g. Densities or intensities. IV. Property Description and Department of Planning & Zoning Recommendations Steven Johnson, Senior Planner with the Department of Planning & Zoning, presented his staff report on the application. Mr. Johnson stated the Applicant is proposing to expand an existing major extraction operation by 19 acres (the "Project") which is a conditional use in the AG zoning district. Mr. Johnson indicated that the project received concept plan approval and a favorable recommendation from the Planning Commission on January 9, 2025. 2 Mr. Johnson testified the Property totals 348.343 acres, is located northeast ofI Ingleside and south of Barclay and is identified as Tax Map 31, Parcel 44, Tract 1. Mr. Johnson provided the Board with a brief overview of the history of the existing major extraction operation which dated back to 2008. He stated that an annual inspection was completed in December 2024, and the operation was found in compliance with no violations and all conditions ofapproval being met. Mr. Johnson testified that access to the site will be via the existing entrance on Merrick Corner Road, and the total limit of disturbance (LOD) for the project is 119.865 acres and includes areas of previous approval and the 19-acre expansion area proposed. He indicated the Applicant is proposing a total of 12.10 acres of impervious area and no new floor area with the project, all setback requirements are complied with, and existing haul and access roads will be utilized. He stated that no new water or sewer is being proposed for the project. Mr. Johnson testified the Applicant estimates 1,956,227 cubic yards of material will be removed in 5.7 years which equates to an annual removal rate of 343,200 cubic yards per year with a finished depth of 70'. Mr. Johnson stated the property is not within the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area or 100-year flood plain, and there are no erosion hazards, streams, wetlands or threatened endangered species on site. He indicated there are 41.08 acres of woodlands on site and the Applicant is proposing to clear 1.44 acres. He stated the existing evergreen screening buffer will be removed and the Applicant is proposing no new buffer at this time as the western boundary of expansion is over 2400 ft. from Rte. 313 and is not easily visible. Mr. Johnson testified the Applicant intends to apply for a larger phase 5 expansion at some time this year and that will include the construction of screening berms. In response to a question by Vie-Chairman McGinnes, Mr. Johnson testified that given that the Applicant intends to come back for an additional expansion, Planning and Zoning didn't believe it was appropriate to have the Applicant plant a buffer that they will have to rip up in the near future. Mr. Johnson indicated the project hours of operation are not changing from the previous approval. He stated the Applicant has submitted a sound study that shows residential noise daytime limits of 65 dBA at the property line, and nighttime limits of 55 dBA at the property line will be met, provided there is compliance with the standoff distances for certain equipment. In response to a question by Vice-Chairman McGinnes, Mr. Johnson stated that there have been no complaints oft noise to date that he is aware of. He stated the trucks will continue to use the existing haul route from Merrick Corner Road to Rte. 313 and the State Highway Administration has reviewed the proposed expansion and offered no objection to its approval. Mr. Johnson indicated that the end use for the project is a 90.47-acre pond with a location for a future residence. 3 Mr. Johnson concluded by stating that no agency that has reviewed this project has offered objection to the approval and staff does not object to the granting of approval subject to the conditions in the staff report. V. Applicant's Presentation Steven Meehan, Esq., attorney and agent on behalf of the Applicant, presented the application. Mr. Meehan first called Sean Callahan with Lane Engineering to testify regarding the project. Mr. Callahan provided history of the mining operation at the site. He stated that the proposal is to grow the mining area from 100 acres to 119 acres and to approve an alternate wash plant site in the center ofthe farm rather than its current location close to Merrick Corner Road for efficiency. He indicated that the Applicant has approximately 12 employees and they are about out of material at the site, thus the need for expansion. Mr. Callahan indicated that the current request is a stopgap that will permit the Applicant to continue in operation for approximately six more years at 100 trucks a day. He stated that the ultimate goal is for a 200+ acre expansion, however, the County needed additional studies that will take time. Mr. Callahan testified that the buffer is not being replaced in the proposed plan because visually you can't see the mining area from Rte. 313 given the location and distance from same and given that there will be buffers, etc. in the final plan for the larger expansion. He stated that in the event the Applicant does not receive approval for the larger expansion as anticipated, then there is a condition that will require the Applicant to plant the buffer. Mr. Callahan pointed out that Chapter 5 of the Comprehensive Plan, regarding mineral resources, identifies that undeveloped land should be kept in its undeveloped state until a land use can be used to provide a continuous source and supply of minerals and identifies post excavation uses for the land and incorporates land use policies and recommendations. Mr. Callahan then went through the benefits in the Plan noted for mining/extraction façilities. He further noted that State Law supports protecting mineral resources for their efficient use, which this project proposes to do. Mr. Callahan went through the specific details of the site plan which has been approved by the QAC Planning Commission and MD Department of the Environment for the mining permit. He noted the new wash plant will be moved further from the County road and will be more centrally located for the current and future project. He noted that all code provisions are addressed directly on the site plan. Mr. Meehan then called Mary Wakefield, Hydrogeologist with Earth Data, to testify as an expert in hydrogeology and the soil sciences aspects ofwater content in the development of surface mines in the State of Maryland. Ms. Wakefield briefly explained how a mining operation works in relation to water loss, changes and quality. She indiçated that a mining operation such as this is one of the cleanest processes and cleanest environmental uses in an agricultural area in terms of 4 the effect to water quality. Ms. Wakefield indicated that the aquifer involved in the mining operation is a surficial aquifer and most of the wells on this aquifer will be agricultural wells and the expansion will not have any effect on homeowners or irrigation wells that may be using the same aquifer. She stated that water quality at the site has been very consistent since 2014. She testified that, in her opinion, there should be no noticeable impact on neighboring wells or water quality because of the expansion being requested. Mr. Meehan then called Mr. William Fitzhugh Turner, certified general real estate appraiser, as an expert in real estate values. Mr. Turner stated that he has testified as an expert regarding the value of adjacent neighboring properties in relation to mining operations several times in this county and surrounding counties. Mr. Turner testified regarding the effect to neighboring property owners as a result of the expansion of the surface mining operation being requested. He stated that there are not a lot of sales in the area to consider. He indicated that based on looking at comparable mining operations and fair market sales in relation to same, the mining operation did not seem to affect the sales in the area. He stated that the lack of sales was not indicative of ability to sell, given that when a house did go on the market that was close to a surface mining operation, it sold quickly and at a price point that was within the market of sales or properties that are not in the vicinity of a surface mining operation. Mr. Turner testified that the lack of visual screening etc. located on properties adjacent to surface mining operations in the area would also support the opinion that the surface mining operation is not causing a property value problem. He concluded by stating itis his opinion that the surface mining expansion being requested by the Applicant will not have an adverse impact on adjacent property owners. VI. Testimony from the Public After the Applicant presented his case, Vie-Chairman McGinnes asked if any members of the public wished to testify either for or in opposition, to which there was no response. VII. Findings and Conclusions of the Board The Board finds the testimony, application and exhibits provided by the Applicant, as well as the written report and testimony provided by Mr. Johnson, credible and persuasive. The Board concludes that the evidence justifies approval of the conditional use request with conditions identified. 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 application meets the submittal requirements pursuant to $18.1-95.E. 2. The proposed use at the proposed location is consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives, and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 18:1, or any other plan, 5 program, map, or ordinance adopted, or under consideration pursuant to official notice, by the County. 3. The proposed use, at the proposed location 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 the public health, safety, and general welfare. 4. 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 Chapter 18:1, Part 7. 5. The application meets the requirements of $18:1-123(B). 6. The approval of the application will not be contrary to the Queen Anne's County Comprehensive Plan. 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: conditional use approval for a 19-acre expansion of an existing major extraction operation in the Agricultural Zoning District. Subject property located at 2251 Goldsboro Road near Barclay, MD, subject to the following conditions (contained in the Planning and Zoning Staff Report): 1. Proper controls and methods are maintained to minimize truck "mud" tracking or dust plumes in dry times with wind drift suppression. 2. The facilities continue to be adequately designed and maintained to free dirt and debris from the wheels and undercarriage of trucks prior to entering Merrick Corner Road. 3. All Soil Conversion District approvals are maintained. 4. The hours of operation will be consistent with the approval ofconditional use case number BOA-19-10-0049. Any changes will require additional approvals. 5. Haul trucks shall adhere to the approved haul route as discussed and presented. 6. The use ofthe dredge, loader, haul truck, and excavator during nighttime hours must adhere to the standoff distances outlined in the staff report and in the sound study dated December 30, 2024. 7. Material storage piles cannot exceed 45' in height. 8. The Applicant submits as-built updates to the Board of Appeals and Department of Planning & Zoning yearly on the anniversary of Board of Appeals approval or on a schedule determined by the Board of Appeals. 9. The Applicant agrees to an annual inspection. 10. All State permits are in place prior to final permitting by Queen Anne's County. 11. Any legal documents are reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission attorney. 12. Any future mining phases or changes to the end use plan must return to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the Board of Appeals for an amendment to the conditional use. 6 13. Any and all financial sureties for reclamation, landscaping, storm water management, and enforcement, etc., are in place before final permits are granted. 14. There shall be no truck parking on Merrick Corner Road. No stacking or parking outside of the gate, no Jake brakes, and no tailgate slamming either on site or on the public road. The Applicant shall post a sign with a notice regarding these restrictions. 15. Any requirements by the Queen Anne's County Roads Department must be satisfactorily addressed. 16. If the Applicant fails to submit an application to the Department of Planning and Zoning for the Phase 5 expansion within twelve months of Board of Appeals final approval, densely planted evergreen trees must bei installed in accordance with 18:1-95.E.(8)(d) along the western boundary ofthe LOD to provide screening. The vegetation shall be maintained to assure the plantings remain alive and healthy during the operation period. The. Applicant shall provide a cash deposit, surety bond, or letter of credit for the landscaping. 17. Any outstanding documentation or comments stemming from agency reviews are addressed prior to permitting. 7 ORDER For the reasons set forth in the foregoing Opinion, it is this 6th day of May, 2025, ordered that the conditional use approval requested for Byler Materials, LLC, Lessee of land owned by Merrick Farm, LLC, in Case No. BOA-24-04-0180, be granted, subject to the conditions set forth in the Opinion. Cwnb Craig W. McGinnes, Acting Chairman - Barry Waterman, Alternate Member * 59 a Scott MacGlashan, Alternate Member 8 State of Maryland, County of Queen Anne's 's: I HEREBY 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-24-04-0180, for Byler Materials, LLC, Lessee of land owned by Merrick Farm, LLC, which Opinion and Order resulted from a public hearing conducted by the Board of Appeals on March 19, 2025 and that the minutes and a reçording of the March 19, 2025 meeting are filed in the office of Board of Appeals. Certified this 6th day of May, 2025 by: Oeuluy Maduedl Cathy Maxwell Clerk to the Board of Appeals 9