BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY In the matter of Application by Case No. BOA-25-01-0205 Michael Griffith & * Amanda J. King * for Zoning Variance FINAL DECISION OF THE BOARD Introduction The Queen Anne's County Board of Appeals (the "Board") held a meeting on February 19, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. to consider Case No. BOA-25-01-0205 for a variance application filed by Michael Griffith and Amanda J. King (hereinafter collectively the "Applicant"). The Board members present were Chairman, Howard Dean, Vice-Chairman, Craig W. McGinnes, and Board Member, Michael A. Lesniowski. At the beginning of the hearing, the Board established that all requirements were met governing the filing ofthe variance application, and proper notice of the February 19, 2025 public hearing. 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 $$18:1-45(B)(4) and 18:1- 19.E.(1))I41eD) of the Code of Public Local Laws of Queen Anne's County (the "Code"), to reduce the required 35' front yard setback from Dogwood Drive to 25' 0 construct a 30' X 50' metal storage building. The Applicant's property is located at 101 Dogwood Dr., Queen Anne, MD (hereinafter the "Property"). The Property is located in the Neighborhood Conservation-5 (NC-5) Zoning District. The Applicant submitted a Building Permit (No. #BR24-08-0601) to construct a 30' x 50' metal storage building. On December 9, 2024, the Queen Anne's County Zoning Inspector, Josh McCauley, denied the Applicant's Building Permit after determining that the proposed building did not meet the minimum setbacks required by $ 18-1-19.EC)4100 of the Code. 101 Dogwood Dr. Setback Variance 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. 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, of Chapter 18:1 4. The degree to which the situation might be more properly addressed by amending this Chapter 18:1 In addition, pursuant to S 18:1-122.A. of the Code, the Board must find that any variance granted is no greater than an amount minimally necessary to ameliorate the conditions giving rise to any practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. Property Description and Department of Planning & Zoning Recommendations Joshua McCauley, Zoning Inspector with the Department ofl Planning & Zoning, presented his staff report. Mr. McCauley testified that the Applicant is seeking to construct a 30' X 50' metal storage building. He said that the Applicant has requested a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 35 feet to 25 feet. He indicated that this lot is a corner lot, which by definition requires the front yard setback be applied to each property line abutting a road. 101 Dogwood Dr. Setback Variance p.3 Mr. McCauley identified the Property as being in the Third Election District of Queen Anne's County and located in the southeastern part ofthe County, in the Fox Meadow Subdivision which was established in 1973. The lot is identified as Tax Map 61, Parcel 106 and located at the corner of Dogwood Drive and Fox Meadow Road. He stated that the lot size is approximately 5.24 Ac. and is a conforming lot within the NC-5 zoning district. Mr. McCauley indicated that the house on the property was constructed in 1976 and there is an existing accessory structure located on the southside of the driveway. He stated that the proposed building will extend 10' into the 35' required setback from Dogwood Drive, thus the Applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the side street setback to 25." Mr. McCauley testified that QAC Code requires a minimum of 6' between the primary structure and an accessory structure. He stated the proposed structure is 29' from the primary structure on the Property. He indicated a significant amount of the property is located within wetlands and would require an additional permit from MDE to disturb. Mr. McCauley concluded by stating that Zoning staff has not received any evidence that outlines the practical difficulty regarding this property. Applicant's Presentation Mr. Griffith, Applicant, testified that the proposed location ofthe 30' X 50' storage building takes into consideration the fact that the building must be located at least 30' from the well on his property and he needs room between the house and storage building to make turns with his equipment to be stored in the building. He stated that there are a lot ofh hydric soils on the property and the only real high point is where the proposed building is being located. He testified that no trees would be removed as part of the project, and the main purpose for the building is to house his tractor and implements out of the weather. Mr. Griffith testified that the building will be a "pole building" type of structure. He stated that he looked at other options for plaçement, but MDE tested the soil and it was hydric, and MDE indicated that he should avoid the hydric soil at all costs. He indicated that the property is significantly higher on the north side oft the driveway and he is restricted due to the lower areas of the property. In response to a question by Vice-Chairman, McGinnes, Mr. Griffith testified that most of his neighbors have similar buildings, and they have not voiced any concerns to him regarding the proposed building. 101 Dogwood Dr. Setback Variançe p. 4 At the conclusion of the Applicant's case, the Board entered all Exhibits, including Applicant #1-6, and Planning and Zoning #1 into the record without objection. Testimony from the Public There was no testimony from the public. Findings and Conclusions ofthe 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 variançe. 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. The location of the well and hydric soils on the specific property makes a literal enforcement of the setback result in unnecessary hardship and practical difficulty for the Applicant. 2. The specific conditions affecting this property are not the result of any action taken by the Applicant. 3. The location of well and soil quality does not permit an alternative location to be used. There are no other alternatives that are viable such that the variance is required. 4. Without the variance the Applicant could not build the proposed structure, which is relatively modest in size and needed for practical purposes. 5. The variance will not affect neighboring properties and will have no impact on resource protection provisions. 6. The variance request is the amount minimally necessary to ameliorate conditions giving rise to the practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. 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 from the provisions of 181-19EX0)0141e0 to permit the Applicant to reduce the required 35' front yard setback to 25' to construct a 30 X 50' metal storage building. 101 Dogwood Dr. Setback Variance p.5 ORDER For the reasons set forth in the foregoing Opinion, it is this 28th day of April, 2025 ordered that the variance requested for Michael Griffith and Amanda J. King, in Case No. BOA- 25-01-0205, be granted. dhchela Howard A. Dean, Chairman CNMEE Craig W. McGinnes, Vice-Chairman Michael A. Lesniowski, Member 101 Dogwood Dr. Setback Variance p. 6 State ofl Maryland, County of Queen Anne'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-25-01-0205, for Michael Griffith and Amanda J. King, which Opinion and Order resulted from a public hearing conducted by the Board of Appeals on February 19, 2025 and that the minutes and a recording of the February 19, 2025 meeting are filed in the office of Board of Appeals. Certified this 28th day of April, 2025 by: - Pobu makwd Cathy Maxwell Clerk to the Board of Appeals BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY In the matter of Application by Case No. BOA-24-11-0201 Jeffery S Pulford & * Catherine F. Pulford * for Zoning Variance FINALI DECISION OF THE BOARD Introduction The Queen Anne's County Board of Appeals (the "Board") held a meeting on February 19, 2025 at 5:15 p.m. to consider Case No. BOA-24-11-0201 for a variance application filed by Jeffery S. Pulford and Catherine F. Pulford (hereinafter collectively the "Applicant")." The Board members present were Chairman, Howard Dean, Vice-Chairman, Craig W. McGinnes, and Board Member, Michael A. Lesniowski. At the beginning of the hearing, the Board established that all requirements were met governing the filing ofthe variance application, and proper notice ofthe February 19, 2025 public hearing. 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 181-19E.X0141el0 of the Code ofPublic Local Laws ofQueen Anne's County (the "Code"), to reduce the required 35' front yard setback from Chesapeake Drive to 25.5' to construct two (2) side decks (8'x9' and 6'x7' respectively) to connect the screen porch on the home to the covered side porch. The Applicant's property is located at 1015 Bayside Dr. (hereinafter the "Property"). The Property is located in the Neighborhood Conservation-20 (NC-20) Zoning District. The Applicant submitted a Building Permit (No. #BR23-08-0583) to construct a 8'x7.5' and a 6'x7.5' deck sections to connect their existing screen porch to their existing side porch. On October 31,2024, the Queen Anne's County Zoning Inspector, Mike Olds, denied the Applicant's 1015 Bayside Dr. Setback Variance p. 2 Building Permit after determining that the proposed decks did not meet the minimum setbacks required by $ 18-1-19.E(C)4Iel00 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. 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, of Chapter 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. 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 Mike Olds, Zoning Inspector with the Department of Planning & Zoning, presented his staff report. Mr. Olds testified that the Applicant is seeking to construct two (2) side decks (8'x9' and 6'x7' respectively) to connect the screen porch on the home located on the property to the covered side porch. He stated that the Applicant has requested a variance from $ 18-1- 1015 Bayside Dr. Setback Variance p.3 19.E(c)[4][c) ofthe Code to reduce the required front yard setback from 35 feet to 25.5 feet. He indicated that this lot is a corner lot, which by definition requires the front yard setback be applied to each property line abutting a road. Mr. Olds identified the Property as being in the Fourth Election District of Queen Anne's County and located in Stevensville, MD. He stated the lot is identified as Tax Map 56, Parcel 395 and located at the corner of 1015 Bayside Dr. and Chesapeake Dr. The property is located in the western part of the County on Kent Island and is approximately one mile west of Matapeake Middle School. He stated that the lot size is approximately 19,000 sq. ft. and is a conforming lot within the NC-20 zoning district and is located entirely within the Limited Development Area (LDA) Critical Area designation. Mr. Olds indicated that the house on the property was constructed in 2024. He stated that the Applicant is proposing to remove the exterior screen porch stairs built pursuant to new house permit (BR21-09-0767) and to construct two new side decks that will connect the screened porch to the covered side porch. The Applicant was previously granted a variance by this Board (BOA-21-12013) to construct the screen porch stairs, however, the new deck request was not a part of that variance and as the decks will extend 9.5' into the 35' required setback from Chesapeake Drive, a second variance to reduce the side street setback to 25.5' is necessary. Mr. Olds noted that the decks being requested have already been constructed by the Applicant. Mr. Olds concluded by stating that Zoning staffhas not received any evidence that outlines the practical difficulty regarding this property. At the conclusion of Mr. Olds' testimony, the Board entered all Exhibits, including Applicant #1-7, and Planning and Zoning #1-2 into the record without objection. Applicant's Presentation Mr. Jeffery Pulford, Applicant, testified that the proposed decks connect the previous approved side porch and screened porch. Mr. Pulford apologized to the Board for constructing the requested decks and indicated it was the result of a miscommunication between Planning and Zoning and himself. He stated that following the approval oft the initial variance request and the issuançe of his new home building permit in February 2023, modulars were delivered to the 1015 Bayside Dr. Setback Variance p.4 property and set on the existing foundation. He indicated that in conversation with a neighbor, a comment was made that there were too many steps to access the home it may be more aesthetically pleasing to delete on ofthe sets of steps and connect the small side porch with the front screened porch. The Applicant testified that he agreed that was a good idea, and discussed it with the permit office in June 2023 to see if that would be ok. Based upon the conversation, he was under the impression that as long as he honored the approved 25.5' setback the design change would not be problematic. He stated that the new design met the 25.5' requirement, SO he proceeded with construction. Mr. Pulford testified that following the inspections for the rear and front decks in August 2023, he was notified that a new permit was necessary since the design had changed. On August 23, 2023 he applied for a new permit. He indicated that it was not until November, 2024 that he was told the permit was denied due to the design change from the initial variance granted. He stated that upon said notification, he applied for the instant variance to permit the decks to attach the front and side deck areas for the same reasons as was indicated in the original variance request which was granted by this Board. Counsel for the Board asked to review the 2021 Variance (BOA-21-12013). In response to questions by Vice-Chairman, McGinnes and Board Member, Lesniowski, Mr. Pulford testified that the only difference in this request from the original plan is the removal of the steps that were going toward the covered side porch which created two sets of steps at 90 degrees to one another. Mr. Pulford testified that the decks do not protrude any closer than 25.5' from the property line as the design was done in consideration of same. Mr. Pulford testified as to the practical difficulty, stating that the original house was built and subdivision was created in 1978 and the setback requirement was only 15.' In 1996 due to being a corner lot, the lot became subject to the 35' requirement as a result ofnow being considered to have two front yards. The building pad already existed when the cormer lot definition came into place. Mr. Olds testified that the Applicant is accurate regarding the change in the setback requirements. 1015 Bayside Dr. Setback Variance p. 5 Testimony from the Public There was no testimony from the public. 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. The practical difficulty and hardship that existed at the time of the initial variance request (BOA-21-12013) remain the same. 2. A literal enforcement of the front yard setback will result in unnecessary hardship and practical difficulty for the Applicant. 3. The specific conditions affecting this property are peculiar to the property involved and are not the result of any action taken by the Applicant. 4. The variance is not contrary to the public interest. 5. There are no other alternatives that are viable such that the variance is required. 6. Without the variance the Applicant could not use the property efficiently and needed for practical purposes. 7. The variance will not affect neighboring properties, and they are in favor of same. 8. The variançe will have no impact on resource protection provisions. 9. The variance request is the amount minimally necessary to ameliorate conditions giving rise to the practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. 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 from the provisions of 181-900)014100 to permit the Applicant to reduce the required 35' front yard setback from Chesapeake Drive to 25.5' in order to construct two decks to the existing residence. 1015 Bayside Dr. Setback Variance p.6 ORDER For the reasons set forth in the foregoing Opinion, it is this 9th day of May, 2025 ordered that the variance requested for Jeffery S. Pulford and Catherine F. Pulford, in Case No. BOA-24- 11-0201, be granted. dhen Caubn Howard A. Dean, Chairman CNMEE Craig W. McGinnes, Vice-Chairman - Michael A. Lesniowski, Member 1015 Bayside Dr. Setback 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 ofQueen Anne's County in Case No. BOA-24-11-0201, for Jeffery S. Pulford and Catherine F. Pulford, which Opinion and Order resulted from a public hearing conducted by the Board of Appeals on February 19, 2025 and that the minutes and a recording of the February 19, 2025 meeting are filed in the office of Board of Appeals. Certified this 9th day of May, 2025 by: Ctly aiwl Cathy Maxwell Clerk to the Board of Appeals BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY In the matter of Application by Case No. BOA-24-03-0174 Harris Family Partnership, LLC Floodplain Variance FINAL DECISION OF THE BOARD Introduction The Queen Anne's County Board of Appeals (the "Board") held a meeting on February 19, 2025 at 5:30 p.m. to consider Case No. BOA-24-03-0174 for a floodplain variance application filed by Harris Family Partnership, LLC (hereinafter the "Applicant"). The Board members present were Chairman Howard Dean, Vice-Chairman Craig W. McGinnes, and Board Member, Michael A. Lesniowski. At the beginning of the hearing, the Board established that all requirements were met governing the filing ofthe variance application and proper notice of the February 19, 2025 public hearing. Board Vice-Chairman McGinnes administered the oath to all who wished to testify on the application, including the Applicant. Applicants' Request The Applicant is the owner of a 38,150 Sq. Ft. parcel ofl land located at 433 Kent Narrows Way, Grasonville, MD (hereinafter the "Property"). The Applicant operates a commercial restaurant in said location known as Harris Family Crab House. In March 1995, the Applicant was issued a variance in Queen Anne's County Case No. V- 316 to permit the construction of an accessory structure to the restaurant within the 100 year floodplain to serve as a "waiting area and bar" (hereinafter interchangeably referred to as "Pavilion," "Structure" and/or "Dessert First"). The 1995 variance requires the structure to be open on three sides and to be constructed in exact conformance with the plans and specifications submitted with the variance application. Floodplain Ordinance Variance Harris Family Properties, LLC 433 Kent Narrows Way, Grasonville, MD p. 2 On February 12, 2024, the Applicant filed for a building permit to allow renovations to the Pavilion. Namely, to permit the Applicant to replace plastic roll up doors/sides with glass roll up garage doors and to relocate flood vents. On February 23, 2024, John Kling, Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM) and County Floodplain Manager with the Queen Anne's County Department of Public Works, denied the building permit finding that the application did not comply with QAC Floodplain Management Code SS 14:3-42A(1),(3) "Elevation Requirements," and 14:3- 41.C(1),(2) requirements regarding "enclosures belowt the lowest floor," owing to: 1)a lowest floor elevation below the flood protection elevation, 2) use other than parking of vehicles, building access or limited storage, and 3) floor area larger than 60 square feet. The Applicant is now seeking an additional variance to the provision of $ 14:3-41.C and $14:3-42.A ofthe Code ofl Public Local Laws of Queen Anne's County (the "Code"), to permit the enclosure of the previously approved Pavilion with roll-up glass paneled garage doors, and to permit an additional 275 sq. ft. (for a total of 875 sq. ft.) of permissible enclosed space below the flood protection elevation (FPE). Applicable Provisions of the Code Pursuant to $14:3-63 of the Code, the Board of Appeals has the power to consider and authorize or deny variances from the strict application of the requirements of the Floodplain regulations. A variance shall be approved ONLYi ifiti is determined to not be contrary to the public interest and where, owing to special conditions of the lot or parcel, a literal enforcement of the provisions of these regulations, would result in an unnecessary hardship. The standards the Board must apply to the Applicant's variance request are set forth in $S 14:3-65 and 14:3-66 of the Code, and are as follows: A. $ 14:3-65. Considerations for variances. 1. The Floodplain Administrator shall request comments on variance applications from MDE (NFIP State Coordinator) and shall provide such comments to the Board of Appeals. Floodplain Ordinance Variance Harris Family Properties, LLC 433 Kent Narrows Way, Grasonville, MD p.3 2. In considering variance applications, the Board of Appeals shall consider and make findings of fact on all evaluations, all relevant factors, requirements specified in other sections ofthese regulations, and the following factors: 3. The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others. 4. The danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage. 5. The susceptibility of the proposed development and its contents (if applicable) to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner. 6. The importance of the services to the community provided by the proposed development. 7. The availability of alternative locations for the proposed use which are not subject to, or are subject to less, flooding or erosion damage. 8. The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable, or if the facility is a functionally dependent use. 9. The compatibility oft the proposed use with existing and anticipated development. 10. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and hazard mitigation plan for that area. 11. The safety of access to the property in times of flood for passenger vehicles and emergency vehicles. 12. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the floodwaters and the effects of wave action, ifa applicable, expected at the site. 13. The costs of providing government services during and after flood conditions, including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems, and streets and bridges. 14. The comments provided by MDE (NFIP State Coordinator). B. $ 14:3-66. Limitations for granting variances. The Board of Appeals shall make an affirmative decision on a variance request only upon: 1. A showing of good and sufficient cause. Good and sufficient cause deals solely with the physical characteristics of the property and cannot be based on the character ofthe Floodplain Ordinance Variance Harris Family Properties, LLC 433 Kent Narrows Way, Grasonville, MD p. 4 improvement, the personal characteristics of the owner/nhabitants, or local provision that regulate standards other than health and public safety. 2. A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship due to the physical characteristics of the property. Increased cost or inconvenience of meeting the requirements of these regulations does not constitute an exceptional hardship to the applicant. 3. A determination that the granting of a variance for development within any designated floodway, or flood hazard area with base flood elevations but no designated floodway, will not result in increased flood heights beyond that which is allowed in these regulations. 4. A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in additional threats to public safety; extraordinary public expense, nuisances, fraud or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws. 5. A determination that the building, structure or other development is protected by methods to minimize flood damages. 6. A determination that the variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief, considering the flood hazard. Testimony and Presentation of the Department of Planning & Zoning John Kling, CFM, County Floodplain Manager with the Queen Anne's County Department ofPublic Works, presented the staff report. Mr. Kling identified the Property as 433 Kent Narrows Way, Grasonville, MD 21638. The Property is further identified as Map 57, Parcel 314. The Property is located in the Waterfront Village Center (WVC) Zoning District and has a Critical Area designation of Intensely Developed Area (IDA). Specifically, the Property is 38,154 square feet and is predominantly located within the Critical Area, designated IDA. Mr. Kling stated that hydric soil, tidal and nontidal wetlands, and areas of noted sensitive species habitat are not located throughout the site. He indicated that the entire property and all ofthe exiting structures are located Floodplain Ordinance Variance Harris Family Properties, LLC 433 Kent Narrows Way, Grasonville, MD p.5 in the Special Flood Hazard Area (AE), with a National Flood Insurançe Rate Maps (FIRM) Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of5.0 Feet. Mr. Kling testified that there is an existing commercial restaurant building being operated on the Property with a previously approved non-elevated accessory structure in the 100-year floodplain, consisting ofal Pavilion structure ("Pavilion" ") with one wall and three open sides (BOA Case No. V-316). Mr. Kling testified that in May 2022 the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a routine periodic floodplain tour in association with a county wide Community Assistance Visit (CAV) to review County compliance with FEMA's minimum floodplain standards. FEMA identified the previously approved Pavilion located on the Property as being "enclosed" and functioning as a "coffee shop" and requested documentation from the County on the permits being issued for the conversion. Mr. Kling stated that the County determined that no permits had been applied for, or issued, for the conversion and the Applicant was notified oft the violation. Mr. Kling stated that in response to the violation notice, the Applicant submitted al building permit application in February 2024 (BC24-02-0010), to permit renovations to the Pavilion to replace the previously installed plastic roll up doors with roll up garage doors with glass panels and to relocate flood vents. Mr. Kling testified that the building permit was denied as it was determined that the structure did not meet the requirements ofthe 1995 Board of Appeals Decision as the doors create an "enclosed" building of over 600 Sq. Ft., and did not meet the current floodplain regulations contained in Chapter 14. In response to the building permit being denied, the Applicant then filed the instant variance request. Mr. Kling went through the specific staff comments contained on page 5-6 in the staff report presented as Planning and Zoning Exhibit 1. He pointed out that the County Code requires a Flood Protection Elevation (FPE) of2 feet above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE). The FEMA standard is the BFE. Therefore, the County would require that the enclosed area be elevated to 7 feet, whereas the FEMA elevation requirement would be 5 feet. He stated the current elevation of the Pavilion is below 5.0 feet. Mr. Kling stated that the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) submitted a comment letter in response to the variance request, the same being identified as Applicant Exhibit #7. He testified that in said letter, MDE takes the position that the modifications to the Pavilion Floodplain Ordinance Variance Harris Family Properties, LLC 433 Kent Narrows Way, Grasonville, MD p. 6 and change in use to a "coffee shop" have necessitated a change in designation from an açcessory structure to a principal structure, and as such, it must conform with the requirement to either elevate at or above the FPE or be dry floodproofed (see Comment #2). He further stated that in Comment #3, MDE severely cautioned the County that granting a variance for development that does not meet minimum NFIP requirements should be avoided. MDE further warned that routine granting of such may jeopardize the County's application to the NFIP Community Rating System (CRS), a voluntary incentive program which provides NFIP policyholders in the County a discount on their flood insurance (see Comments 3-4). Mr. Kling indicated that if the County does not comply with federal minimum standards, this could result in an across-the-board increase in flood insurance rates of 15% for all County residents with a flood insurance policy. He further testified that the Couty gets credit with the CRS system for increased standards (i.e.: 2-foot FPE instead of the required BFE set by FEMA), and a variance that goes against the County criteria may have an effect on the rating system that negatively impacts the County insurance rates. Mr. Kling testified that the Applicant cannot meet the requirements for the Board to approve the requested variance, as the "hardship" being identified is one that is being created by the Applicants themselves. He stated that the 1995 variance permitted the Applicant to construct an accessory structure with very specific limitations as outlined in the Board's Order to include a specific intended use as a bar area in an "open" waiting area for the patrons ofthe restaurant, and the enclosure is not compliant with FEMA floodplain standards and was not permitted in the 1995 variance. In response to a question by Board Member McGinnes, Mr. Kling testified that the biggest concern is the enclosure of the Pavilion and the fact that it is no longer considered an "open" area for FPE standards. Mr. Kling explained that the FEMA minimum standard for FPE for this structure is 5.0 Feet, and Queen Anne's County elevated that minimum standard from the BFE to 2 feet which would require this structure to be elevated to 7.0 feet (the floor area where you would serve customers, etc. would have to be elevated to 7.0 feet). Dry floodproofing is a way to avoid the FPE requirement and was considered as an option with the Applicant; however, it was not viable or practical at this property given the design of the structure. Floodplain Ordinançe Variance Harris Family Properties, LLC 433 Kent Narrows Way, Grasonville, MD p. 7 In response to a question by Board Member Lesniowski, Mr. Kling stated that without the three sides enclosed, ifthe Board determined that the "use" as a coffee bar is consistent with the 1995 variance and met the intended use, then the Applicant would be in compliance. Applicants' Presentation Genevieve Mcfarlane, Esq., counsel for the Applicant, presented the Applicant's case and provided background information regarding the 1995 variance. Ms. Mcfarlane indiçated that the Pavilion wasi initially used with plastic roll-up sides, and then roll-up glass garage doors were later added to allow the structure to be used during harsh weather conditions and to permit a more enjoyable experience for customers. By way of opening statement, Ms. Mcfarlane argued that Code $$14:3-42 and 14:3-41(C), are being applied by the County as the Pavilion is now being considered as an "enclosure" due to the modification from plastic sides to roll-up glass garage doors. Ms. Mcfarlane argued that 14:3- 41(C) is not applicable in this case, as the Code defines "Enclosures Below the Lowest Floor" as "an unfinished or flood resistant enclosure that is located below an elevated building, is surrounded by walls on all sides, and is usable solely, for parking of vehicles, building access or storage, in an area such as a basemen! area, provided that such enclosure is built in accordance with the applicable design guidelines. 99 Ms. Mcfarlane further argued that although the Applicant believes they have met the requirements of 14:3-42 and 14:3-41(C), 14:3-41(C) remains inapplicable given the County definition. Ms. Mcfarlane stated that $14:3-63 dictates that a variance shall be approved only ifit is determined to not be contrary to the public interest and were owing to special provisions of the lot or parcel, a literal enforcement of the regulations would result in an "unnecessary hardship." Ms. Mcfarlane cited to Belvoir Farms Homeowners Assoc. V. North and Assateague Coastal Trust, Inc. V. Schwalbach arguing that such case law indicates that the "unwarranted hardship" standard and its similar manifestations (as in our Code) are equivalent to the denial of reasonable and significant use of a person's property. Ms. Mcfarlane argued that the roll up doors are significant to the Applicant, as they allow the Applicant to operate in all weather conditions and provides a comfortable atmosphere for coffee, dessert, and waiting area for Harris Crab House Floodplain Ordinance Variance Harris Family Properties, LLC 433 Kent Narrows Way, Grasonville, MD p. 8 customers. She argued that the addition of glass roll-up garage doors is a reasonable addition to the existing use of the property what was allowed under the 1995 variance. She further argued that the Applicant will show good cause that the property is unique and the addition of the glass doors are a minimal risk to public health and safety and the failure to grant the variance requested for roll-up garage doors will result in an exceptional hardship to the Applicant. Ms. Mcfarlane introduced Mr. Jeff Hubbard, Chief of Land Surveys at Lane Engineering, Mr. Hubbard stated he has extensive experience in floodplains, FEMA applications, and elevation certificates. Mr. Hubbard testified that he reviewed the Pavilion structure and noted that the Pavilion was enclosed by a set of roll-up garage doors that make a pretty tight seal and keep the elements out. He indicated that the garage doors are held up by a horizontal track and operate like residential garage doors would. He testified that the Pavilion has four (4) smart vents, that are under FEMA definition permanent openings, and each will vent 200 Sq ft. for a total of 800 Sq ft. in the walls. He stated that the Pavilion was built like a deck with slat openings, and he estimated that the building has over 1,000 sq. inches of permanent opening which meets FEMA's requirements for venting. He stated that the structure sits 70 feet back from the front dock line, and the setback is protecting it from the tidal water. Mr. Hubbard testified that the Pavilion was built similar to a pier and most ofthe decking is a composite with gaps to permit the passage ofwater. Mr. Hubbard indicated that the property is anchored by an 8-inch concrete masonry wall that the other elements of the building are structurally attached to. He indicated that the electric panel is elevated above BFE. Mr. Hubbard testified that in the event of a flood, there is equalized pressure and given that the material is glass and metal, it is unlikely to float and hit other property during a storm. He stated that the buildings are built on the highest part of the property and people would have more difficulty getting to the property in the event of a flood than there would be risk of harm from debris. Mr. Hubbard stated that there is very minimal potential for damage due to the fact that the venting will stop any hydrostatic pressure that will occur which is the whole purpose of flood venting. Mr. Hubbard stated that it is his opinion that the community embraces the use of the Pavilion at this property, and the way the Pavilion is tucked into the buildings, he could not imagine a better location fori it. He stated that the property supports a waterfront restaurant, and the amenity makes it attractive to their patrons. Floodplain Ordinance Variance Harris Family Properties, LLC 433 Kent Narrows Way, Grasonville, MD p.9 Mr. Hubbard testified that there is a community plan for the maritime area, and it is very important to the citizens to be able to enjoy water access such as this. Mr, Hubbard stated there is only one way in and out to access the property and the street will flood before the buildings in the event of an emergency. He stated that FEMA does not predict this to be a high wave action area, and with the narrowness ofthis area it is protected from this risk. Mr. Hubbard testified in response to the MDE comments and stated that in his experience a County typically adopts the floodplain ordinance, and most Counties get a 10% flood insurance reduction Countywide, and he has never seen anyone get a greater discount than that. He further stated that the garage doors have not changed the structure, as he contends the Pavilion building was always enclosed from the beginning for flood rating purposes due to how the building was constructed. Mr. Hubbard testified that the "lowest floor" is the elevated first floor, and enclosures below the lowest floor are usually an attached garage that is typically below the lowest structure. He stated this Pavilion is a stand-alone structure with the floor of the Pavilion as the lowest floor and ifhe issued an elevation certificate for the Pavilion it would be for the lowest elevation of the deck that is already there. He testified that in his professional opinion, Code $14:3-41(C) would not apply to this building. Mr. Hubbard concluded that allowing the roll up garage doors will not result in elevated flood heights, and no additional damage would be expected due to the roll up doors in the event ofa flood. He further stated that in his opinion the variance being requested is the minimum amount necessary to afford relief considering the flood hazard. Ms. Mcfarlane next introduced the Applicants, Sherrie Oertel and Bill Oertel. Mrs. Oertel testified about "Dessert First" which is the coffee and dessert bar that is being operated out of the Pavilion since 2019. She indicated that she envisioned something family friendly that the whole family could enjoy while waiting for a table, rather than just those over 21 years old. She stated the intent was a community gathering place, and she started with a dessert case and an espresso machine for several years. She indiçated that there are already coffee places on Kent Island, but with Dessert First, the goal was to have a location where people could relax and enjoy the Island. She testified that Dessert First employs several local individuals and the County often uses the location for events and as a meeting place for tourism related functions. Mrs. Oertel testified that the biggest thing Dessert First does, is allow people to enjoy the water and the Island without Floodplain Ordinance Variance Harris Family Properties, LLC 433 Kent Narrows Way, Grasonville, MD p. 10 spending a large sum ofn money. She indicated that the garage doors were added purely to increase aesthetics, and it was never considered that it would affect the use of the Pavilion. Mr. Bill Oertel then testified about the requested variance and stressed the fact that the ask was a very simplistic one, namely to replace existing plastic roll up doors with glass roll up garage doors. Mr. Oertel stated that Harris Crab House and Dessert First provide jobs to a number of County residents. He indicated that the Pavilion area is about showing off the heritage of the community and the history of Kent Narrows. Mr. Oertel testified that the use has not changed at the location, only that they used to sell shots of alcohol and now they sell shots of espresso. He stressed to the Board that it was a waiting area and still is a waiting area. Mr. Oertel stated that his family has been in the restaurant business for a long time and it is a natural progression and evolution of business to change and update a menu. Mr. Oertel indicated that the Harris Family has operated at the location since the mid 1930's, and it has remained in the family and is now in the 6th generation. He stated that the Pavilion building was constructed in the mid 1990's and it was approved as a bar and holding area to serve food and drinks, which was always the intent and what it has been used for since. He testified that the Pavilion is under 900 sq ft., that there are adequate flood vents and the floor is constructed with decking boards to ensure water flow. Mr. Oertel stated that since Hurricane Isabelle the property has only had two (2) flood events, and each time, there was no damage as the roll up doors were opened, the water came up from the decking boards, and receded the same way as designed. He stated that when discussing flooding, it is not the Pavilion that is the problem, it is the public road that floods first. Mr. Oertel testified that Harris Crab House and Dessert First are one and the same company, and the only difference is the menu. He stated that he tried to work with the County to determine a plan to çome into compliance and that the County and State looked at options, and all participated in a zoom meeting with FEMA, however, the meeting was not productive. Mr. Oertel indicated that in January 2024, there was a flood event on the Island and a 6 foot tide, and there was only approximately 4 inches ofwater in the Pavilion and no financial losses. He testified that he rolls up the doors when bad weather is coming, and ifthe tide is predicted to be any more than 4 feet, he moves the contents of the Pavilion onto blocks. He indicated that a number of other businesses in the area are using roll up doors for the same purpose. Floodplain Ordinance Variance Harris Family Properties, LLC 433 Kent Narrows Way, Grasonville, MD p. 11 Mr. Oertel testified that they do not have flood insurance on the property and have never been required to carry any, thus the Applicant will never be a burden to FEMA. Mr. Oertel pointed out that the property is located in the Kent Narrows growth area, with a Waterfront Village Center zoning designation and is part ofthe Kent Narrows Development Foundation. Mr. Oertel testified that the Pavilion and Dessert First is consistent with the plan for the area and he stressed his concern regarding the need to improve existing structures in the Narrows and the difficulty being created by the regulations. He stated that the concept ofthe restaurant was to have customers walk along the dock and enjoy the Narrows while waiting for their table and enjoy the heritage of the waterman. He testified that this location is unique, in that a patron can sit and watch the waterman bring their catch to the dock, and it does not work without the glass roll up doors. In response to a question by Chairman Dean, Mr. Kling testified that FEMA does not consider whether the current owner has floodi insurance, as the owner could change at any moment. Mr. Kling stated that the intent of the Flood Ordinance is to prevent and minimize flood damage on structures in the area. Mr. Oertel testified that the property and Pavilion are located next to the cross-island trail and many County residents use the facilities located at the Pavilion as there are very limited options and most of the Narrows Restaurants are not open until 11:00 am. Mr. Oertel concluded by stressing the employment opportunities in the County that he provides through Harris Crab House and Dessert First. In response to a question by Vice-Chairman McGinnes, Mr. Oertel indicted that he is not aware of other dock bars in the area that sell coffee and dessert in the same manner. In response to questions from counsel, Mrs. Oertel indicated that if the variance was not granted, many people would lose their jobs. In response to a question by Mr. McGinnes, Mr. Kling testified that FEMA classifies garage doors as walls irrespective ofwhether they are left open or closed at the site, and it is noted as such on an elevation certificate. He stated that FEMA has not provided guidance on the classification of vinyl; as such, the County has internally determined that vinyl does not classify as an enclosure, and Public Works treats it as an opening. Mr. Oertel testified that approximately 50% ofthe year the garage doors remain open. Floodplain Ordinance Variance Harris Family Properties, LLC 433 Kent Narrows Way, Grasonville, MD p. 12 Testimony from the Public Mr. Gene Ransom testified in favor of the Application as both a customer and a former County Commissioner (2002-2010). He indicated that he frequents Dessert First almost daily, and he holds work meetings there in the event he can work remotely. He stated that during his time as a Couty Commissioner he represented Kent Narrows, and in 2006 the Commissioners adopted the Kent Narrows Plan. He indicated that the Kent Narrows Plan was later adopted in substantially the same form by the current siting County Commissioners in 2022 for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan. He testified that the Kent Narrows Plan specifically included buildings like the Pavilion and specifically referenced an intent to enhance local business, promote tourism, and provide public waterfront access, all of which Dessert First and the Pavilion space provide. He stated that if FEMA has a position they should have sent representation to present same. In response to a question by Board Member McGinnes, Mr. Ransom testified that the whole intent of the Kent Narrows Development Plan was to capture people who were traveling through the County and to promote tourism and access. He stated that prior to being a coffee shop, the Pavilion was not open all the time and was not used the same. He indicated that since opening the coffee shop, the Applicant has made the use more consistent with the Plan, and it is better for the public. Mr. Eric Wargotz testified in favor ofthe Application. He indiçated that he is a resident of the County and a former Commissioner. He stated that regulations are not perfect, and bodies such as the Board have the ability to call out flaws and faults in regulations and overrule them to send ar message. He stated that the Pavilion is not a building enclosed by "walls." The 1995 variance permitted the Pavilion, and the Applicant honored what was already permitted. Mr. Jody Schulz testified in opposition to the Application. He stated that he is in support of everyone having the ability to put up garage doors in the Narrows and for the Board to be sympathetic to all businesses there regarding the issue. Mr. Schulz testified that all of the restaurants in the Narrows used to have flaps which are dangerous, and garage doors work. He stated there is really no difference between the two except to say that garage doors are safer. He testified that, just like the Harris Family, the Schulz Family has been in the Narrows for years, and ifthe variance is granted, the Schulzes will jump on board with the process. He testified that the Floodplain Ordinançe Variance Harris Family Properties, LLC 433 Kent Narrows Way, Grasonville, MD p. 13 County increased the floodplain 2 feet higher than the State and that has created a problem, and it is a deepissue to consider. Mr. Schulz stated that as a business owner in the Narrows, he and others have to live with what is in place and do the best they can and try to pull the same customers in. In response to a question by Chairman Dean, Mr. Kling testified that the first regulated flood maps in Queen Anne's County were promulgated in 1984. Mark Allison, a member oft the Community, testified in favor ofthe Applicant. He stated that Dessert First is one of the only locations that is dog friendly, and he supports the Applicant. Mr. Kling testified in rebuttal to the Applicant's case. He stated that "enclosures below the lowest floor" applies to every building in the flood zone if the floor is not elevated, and every section in the ordinance refers back to that section. He stressed that FEMA considers garage doors to be enclosures. In response to Vice-Chairman McGinnes' question, Mr. Kling stated that on the FEMA elevation certificate, there are instructions that indicate that a garage door is an enclosure per their standards. Mr. Hubbard testified agreeing with Mr. Kling that when openings are rated, FEMA will not permit something that can be opened and closed by man to be an "opening" when issuing an elevation certificate. Mr. Kling testified that if fvinyl flaps are reinforced by metal, that also would be considered an enclosure from the County's perspective. He stated that most of the structures in the Narrows are "pre FIRM" (pre-flood insurance rate map); however, this structure is not pre-FIRM, as it was constructed after the original flood ordinance took effect, and SO the County has to treat it like a flood compliant structure. He stated that by the Applicants adding the walls, they made the structure "non-compliant. 79 He testified that before the enclosure, the County did not argue the use ofthe area to be inconsistent with the 1995 variance. Mr. Kling stressed this is a FEMA "minimum standard", and the negative ramifications to the County and its residents could be widespread. In response to a question by Chairman Dean, Mr. Kling stated that as of the hearing date, the Floodplain Regulations remain unchanged notwithstanding the new administration. Floodplain Ordinance Variance Harris Family Properties, LLC 433 Kent Narrows Way, Grasonville, MD p. 14 Findings and Conclusions of the Board Based on the testimony and evidence presented, and duly considering the factors set forth in of the Queen Anne's County Code, including but not limited to SS 14:3-65 and 14:3-66, the Board specifically finds and concludes as follows with respect to the requested variance: 1. There is no danger that materials may be swept away onto other lands to the injury of others if the variance was granted. 2. There is no danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage ift the variance was granted. 3. There is no conçern regarding the susceptibility of the proposed development and its contents (if applicable) to flood damage. 4. The variance would provide desired services to the community. 5. There are no alternative locations for the proposed use which are not subject to, or are subject to less, flooding or erosion damage as the Pavilion is on the highest spot. 6. The waterfront location is very important for the use of the property. 7. The use of the Pavilion is consistent with existing development in the area. 8. The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the Kent Narrows area. 9. The variance would not create any additional safety issues for accessing the property in times of flood for passenger vehicles and emergency vehicles. 10. The Pavilion has sufficient venting, and there are minimal wave action concerns at the site. 11. The variance would not increase the need to provide government services during and after flood conditions, including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems, and streets and bridges. 12. In considering the comments provided by MDE the Board finds that the current usage ofthe property is consistent and appropriate with the 1995 variance that was based on an accessory structure with three (3) open sides. 13. Pursuant to the 1995 variance issued, three sides of the structure are required to be open. Floodplain Ordinance Variance Harris Family Properties, LLC 433 Kent Narrows Way, Grasonville, MD p. 15 14. The installation of glass garage doors results in an enclosure ofthe Pavilion and creates a stand-alone structure that is not consistent with the 1995 variance. 15. There was no evidence presented regarding raising the structure to comply with the elevation regulation, and the Board cannot find that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship due to the physical characteristics of the property. 16. The granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights beyond that which is allowed in the regulations. 17. The granting of a variance will not result in additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, nuisances, fraud or victimization ofthe public, or conflict with existing local laws. 18. The structure is protected by methods to minimize flood damage. 19. The use of the structure as a coffee and dessert bar/waiting area is consistent with the 1995 variance. 20. The Board determines that the variance is not the minimum necessary to afford relief considering the flood hazard, as the Applicant could achieve the same result using vinyl, as they have in the past, and such would remain consistent with the approved 1995 variance. DECISION Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, and upon motion by Vice-Chairman McGinnes to decline the variance from the floodplain management ordinance in regard to the additional 275 sq. ft. ofp permissible enclosed space below the flood protection elevation, the Board voted two in favor and one opposed, as such the Variance request is hereby DENIED. Floodplain Ordinance Variance Harris Family Properties, LLC 433 Kent Narrows Way, Grasonville, MD p. 16 ORDER For the reasons set forth in the foregoing Opinion, it is this 24th day of April, 2025, ordered that the variance requested for Harris Family Properties, LLC, in Case No. BOA-24-03- 0174, be denied. ghcuela Howard A. Dean, Chairman CNMEL Craig W. McGinnes, Vice-Chairman - Michael A. Lesniowski, Member Floodplain Ordinance Variance Harris Family Properties, LLC 433 Kent Narrows Way, Grasonville, MD p. 17 State ofMaryland, 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-24-03-0174, for Harris Family Properties, LLC, which Opinion and Order resulted from a public hearing conducted by the Board of Appeals on February 19, 2025 and that the minutes and a recording of the February 19, 2025 meeting are filed in the office of Board of Appeals. Certified this 24th day of April, 2025 by: Cocly MMadwlee Cathy Maxwell Clerk to the Board of Appeals