>> LAST MONTH, THEY WOULDN'T TURN OFF?
[00:00:02]
YEAH. GOOD BY THAT.SLIDE. GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.
[Opening]
IT'S 6:00 PM TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2024.WE WELCOME YOU TO THE CAROLINE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING.
I AM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.
VICE CHAIR TO MY LEFT IS KAREN HARDY, MEMBER MIKE MANN TO MY RIGHT, IS HERE TONIGHT.
ALSO, TO MY RIGHT, WE HAVE BOARD ATTORNEY PATRICK THOMAS AND BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, KATHERINE MCCAULEY, TO MY LEFT AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW.
DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT, MAT KOZINSKI.
THIS IS A CONTINUATION FROM JULY 16TH OF 2024.
I'M GOING TO JUST GO AHEAD AND OPEN THIS AS A REGULAR MEETING SINCE WE TABLED IT.
THIS IS APPLICANT TRAVIS EWING VARIANCE NUMBER 24-002022041 GANNON DRIVE, PRESTON, MARYLAND, A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AND ATTACH 12.6 BY 30 SCREEN PORTS PARTIALLY WITHIN 100 FOOT BUFFER.
THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HAS THE POWER AND DUTY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL USE, EXCEPTIONS, VARIANCES, APPEALS, AND WHERE IT IS ALLEGED, THERE IS AN ERROR IN ANY ORDER, REQUIREMENT, DECISION, OR DETERMINATION MADE IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ZONING CHAPTER THE CODE OF PUBLIC LOCAL LAWS, CAROLINE COUNTY, MARYLAND.
THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR CASE.
WE WILL TAKE TESTIMONY FROM THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION, AND THEN WE WILL TAKE TESTIMONY FROM THOSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION.
ONCE THE TESTIMONY FROM BOTH SIDES HAD BEEN GIVEN, WE WILL ALLOW TIME FOR EACH SIDE TO ASK QUESTIONS FROM THE OPPOSING SIDE.
FOR THOSE WISHING TO ASK QUESTIONS, YOU MUST TAKE THE OATH AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
ONCE CLOSING ARGUMENTS ARE COMPLETE, THE BOARD WILL CLOSE FOR DELIBERATION.
NO ONE FROM THE AUDIENCE MAY SPEAK WHILE THE BOARD DELIBERATES UNLESS THE BOARD ASKS FOR CLARIFICATION FROM THE AUDIENCE.
THE BOARD MAKES EVERY EFFORT TO DECIDE AN APPLICATION, THE SAME NIGHT THE TESTIMONY IS HEARD.
OCCASIONALLY, THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE AND A CONTINUANCE WILL BE GRANTED.
I ACTUALLY DID THAT BACKWARD, SO I'LL START DO IT AGAIN.
THE FIRST AND ONLY CASE TONIGHT IS FROM TRAVIS EWING VARIANCE NUMBER
[PUBLIC HEARINGS Applicant: Travis Ewing-Variance No. 24-0020]
24-0022022041 GANNON DRIVE, PRESTON, MARYLAND.A REQUEST A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AND ATTACHED 12.6 BY 30 SCREEN PORTS PARTIALLY WITHIN 100 FOOT BUFFER.
>> ALL RIGHT, MATT, DO YOU WANT TO READ IN THE EXHIBITS?
>> YEAH, I'LL READ IN THE BOARD EXHIBITS.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE AN ADDITIONAL EXHIBIT 2, SO.
APPLICANT EXHIBIT NUMBER 1 IS A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING, PUBLISHED IN A TIMES RECORD ON JULY 3RD AND JULY 10TH.
EXHIBIT 2 IS THE STAFF REPORT.
EXHIBIT 3 IS THE APPLICATION, EXHIBIT 4 IS THE SITE PLAN.
EXHIBIT 5 IS THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENT TAXATION, REAL PROPERTY DATASET AND TAX MAP.
EXHIBIT 6 IS AERIAL OVERLAY, EXHIBIT 7 IS AERIAL THE SURROUNDING AREA.
EXHIBIT 8 IS ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER AFFIDAVIT.
EXHIBIT 9 IS THE SIGNED POSTING AFFIDAVIT AND PHOTOS.
EXHIBIT 10 IS THE APPLICANT NOTICE.
EXHIBIT 11 IS A CRITICAL A COMMISSION LETTER, AND THEN WE HAVE A NEW EXHIBIT THAT'S BEEN ADDED IN.
IT'S THE APPLICANT'S EXHIBIT 1, TITLED PERSICO PORT VARIANCE.
>> YOU GUYS CAN PRESENT YOUR CASE AND SINCE IT'S JUST THREE OF YOU.
>> IF YOU GUYS ARE, WHOEVER'S GOING TO TALK OR IF YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO TALK, JUST STAND UP, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND TAKE THE OATH.
DO YOU HEREBY SOLELY DECLARE AND AFFIRM UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE STATEMENT YOU MAKE AND THE TESTIMONY YOU GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
[00:05:01]
YOU COULD START TRAVIS. TO SAY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS?>> NICHOLAS PERSICO 22041, GANNON DRIVE, PRESTON, MARYLAND 21655.
>> KELLY MILTON 22041, GANNON DRIVE, PRESTON, MARYLAND, 21655.
>> YOU GUYS CAN START YOUR CASINGS NOW.
>> THANK YOU, EVERYBODY. I JUST WANT TO START BY SAYING THANK YOU TO THE BOARD FOR GRANTING US A CONTINUANCE LAST TIME AND ALLOWING US TO TAKE IN THE CRITICAL AREA OF COMMISSION LETTER AND ALSO SOME OF THE ADVICE AND FEEDBACK THAT YOU GAVE US AT THE PREVIOUS HEARING.
SINCE THEN, TRAVIS, MY WIFE AND I, AS WELL AS LEGAL COUNSEL HAD LOOKED OVER EVERYTHING AND PUT TOGETHER THIS PRESENTATION THAT I'D LIKE TO GO WITH ALL OF YOU TODAY.
AS WELL AS ADDRESS SOME OF THE POINTS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP AT THE PREVIOUS HEARING AS WELL AS DISCUSSING DETAILS THAT WERE EITHER COVERED OR NOT COVERED IN OUR APPLICATION OR WERE NOT CLEAR.
MATT IS IT POSSIBLE TO JUST GO THROUGH?
>> YOU GOT TO PULL IT UP HERE, YEAH, I JUST I APPRECIATE THAT.
THE FIRST SLIDE HERE GOES INTO PAGE 2, GOES INTO THE FIRST QUESTION, WHICH IS WHY WE ARE SEEKING THIS PROPOSED SCREEN PORCH, AND IN OUR VIEW, IT'S A REASONABLE USE OF THE BACKYARD AND TO HAVE A COVERED AREA BECAUSE A SCREEN PORCH IS A COMMON USE OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN OUR LOCAL AREA.
WE THINK IT'S A REASONABLE USE TO ENJOY THE WATERFRONT AS OTHER WATERFRONT HOMEOWNERS DO, EVEN FOLKS THAT ARE NOT ON THE WATERFRONT TO HAVE A SCREEN PORCH IN THEIR BACKYARD.
WE ARE, WE HAVE A A NEW AND GROWING FAMILY, SO WE WON'T BE ABLE TO RELAX COMFORTABLY OUTDOORS WITH YOUNG CHILDREN.
WE ALSO HAVE SOME ELDERLY FAMILY MEMBERS THAT ARE ALLERGIC TO BEES, SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN ENJOY THE OUTDOORS AT OUR PROPERTY SAFELY.
WE BELIEVE THAT OUR PROPOSAL HAS A MINIMUM IMPACT TO THE CRITICAL AREA, AND WE HAVE A MITIGATION PLAN TO OFFSET THAT IMPACT AND ANOTHER REASON FOR THIS AND WHY WE'RE ALL HERE IS THAT THE SHAPE AND LOT OF OUR HOUSE THAT WAS BUILT IN 1969 FALLS ALMOST ENTIRELY INTO THE CRITICAL AREA, AND THAT CRITICAL AREA LOW WAS MADE AFTER, YOU KNOW, THE HOUSE WAS BUILT AND PUT TOGETHER.
THAT'S THE WHY WE'D LIKE TO DO IT.
>> I JUST WANT TO KNOW THAT THE REASON FOR THE SIZE IS THAT THAT SIZE SQUARES OFF THE BACK OF HOUSE, WHICH IS INTEGRITY WITH THE FULL DESIGN OF THE PROPERTY OR THE HOUSE, AND THEN ALSO THE SIZE IS ALSO, WE'D LIKE TO HAVE A LIVING AND DINING SPACE ON THE PORCH SO THAT WE HAVE MORE ROOM TO ENTERTAIN FAMILY AND FRIENDS AND ENJOY THE OUTDOORS.
>> THEN THE NEXT SLIDE IS, I DON'T KNOW IF THE VIDEO WILL WORK, BUT THIS HAS TAKEN THIS FALL.
THIS IS LOOKING OUT WHERE THE PORCH WOULD BE FROM THE SLIDING GLASS DOOR THAT EXISTS.
THIS IS THE NATS THAT OCCUR IN THE LATE SUMMER AND EARLY FALL, WHERE IT JUST MAKES IT UNBEARABLE TO BE OUTSIDE.
THIS IS NOT A RANDOM PHENOMENON.
THIS HAPPENS EVERY SINGLE YEAR THAT WE LIVE THERE, AND THE NEIGHBORS ALSO. [OVERLAPPING]
>> COVERED INVES. THE DOGS GET COVERED INVEST.
YOU CANNOT BE OUTDOORS OR WHATEVER SEASON THEY'RE HAPPENING.
>> YES. FOR ALL THOSE REASONS, WE FEEL THAT A SCREEN PORCH IS NECESSARY AND REASONABLE HERE AND ON THE NEXT SLIDE.
>> THAT'S THE ONLY VIDEO SO THE ONLY TIME ACTUALLY DID NOT OPEN THAT VIDEO WHILE I WAS LOOKING AT THINGS.
[00:10:01]
>> THERE WE GO. AS PART OF THE CRITERIA REQUIREMENTS, IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT WE NEED TO GO THROUGH AND LOOK AT ALL THE DIFFERENT POSSIBLE PLACEMENT OPTIONS FOR THIS, THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE.
WE'VE OUTLINED FOUR POTENTIAL PLACEMENT OPTIONS FOR THIS WITH THE FOURTH ONE BEING OUR PROPOSED PLAN.
THE FIRST ONE ON THE NEXT SLIDE TALKS ABOUT THE FRONT YARD, AND THE FRONT YARD IS NOT VIABLE BECAUSE THE ENTIRE FRONT YARD IS OUR SEPTIC SYSTEM AND DRAIN FIELD.
OUR SEPTIC SYSTEM WAS ACTUALLY COMPLETELY REPLACED IN 2021 SHORTLY AFTER WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY BECAUSE WHEN WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, THE SEPTIC SYSTEM WAS FAILING.
SO WE CAME IN, PUT AN ENTIRELY NEW SYSTEM USING THE STATE AND COUNTIES VAT PROGRAM AND THAT THAT WAS GREAT, AND THE SYSTEMS WEREN'T GREAT, BUT PUTTING ANYTHING THERE IN ADDITION TO THE DRIVEWAY JUST DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A VIABLE OPTION FOR US IN TERMS OF PLACING A SCREEN PORCH THERE.
THE SECOND LOCATION IS A BACK YARD LOCATION OFF OF THE MASTER BEDROOM THAT SITS UP NEXT TO THE NEIGHBORS, THE COAL BURNS, AND YOU CAN SEE IN THE IMAGE, THERE'S A LITTLE METAL PIPE STICKING UP OUT OF THE GROUND, AND THAT IS ACTUALLY THE WELL.
PUTTING A SCREEN COURSE THERE OR ANY STRUCTURE THERE WOULD IMPACT THAT.
THEN THERE'S THIS REALLY BEAUTIFUL OLD OAK TREE SITTING THERE AS WELL.
THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE IMPACTED IF WE IF WE CHOSE AND TRIED TO PROPOSE PUTTING SOMETHING THERE.
FOR THOSE TWO REASONS, WE FEEL LIKE THAT'S NOT AN ADEQUATE PLACE TO PUT IT.
THE THIRD LOCATION WHICH WAS ACTUALLY DISCUSSED AT THE LAST HEARING WAS THE SIDE YARD.
FROM OUR RECOLLECTION, WE DISCUSSED THIS, THE BOARD DISCUSSED THIS AND DETERMINED THAT THIS MAY NOT BE A SUITABLE OPTION EITHER.
JUST TO RECAP SOME OF THE REASONS WHY WE DON'T VIEW THAT IT'S OUR VIEW THAT THIS IS NOT A SUITABLE OPTION IS BECAUSE IF WE WERE TO PUT A SCREEN PORCH HERE, THE SIZE OF IT WOULD BE A SUCH THAT WOULD BE A SUBSTANDARD USE OF WHAT WE'RE INTENDING TO USE IT FOR, WHICH IS A LIVING AND DINING SPACE.
IT ALSO DOESN'T FOLLOW THE DESIGN INTEGRITY OF IT.
THIS ACTUALLY THE ACCESS POINT TO THE SCREEN PORCH OFF OF THE HOUSE WOULD ACTUALLY BE THROUGH THE LAUNDRY ROOM, SO THAT WOULD NOT BE A GREAT OPTION, BUT ON THE OUTSIDE, BETWEEN THE REQUIRED SETBACKS FOR THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY, THE ACCESS TO THE BACKYARD WOULD BE DISRUPTED.
IF YOU WERE TO PUT THE STREAM PORT THERE, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE BACK YARD THAT WAY LIKE WE CAN TODAY, AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE IT VERY SMALL TO FIT WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACK FOR THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.
THEN YOU ALSO HAVE, YOU'RE CREATING A NEW, YOU'RE REMOVING SOME PRIVACY THAT THE CURRENT NEIGHBORS HAVE, AND THEN WE HAVE IF YOU WERE TO PUT STREAM PORTS THERE, IT'S OVERLOOKING RIGHT INTO THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.
THAT'S THE REASONS WHY WE BELIEVE THE SIDE YARD OPTION IS NOT A VIABLE OPTION.
NOW ON TO THE FOURTH AND PROPOSED LOCATION, IT'S OUR VIEW THAT THIS HAS THE LEAST IMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT.
IT AFFORDS BOTH US AND OUR TWO NEIGHBORS THE GREATEST LEVEL OF PRIVACY.
THERE'S NO ENCROACHMENT ON ANY SETBACKS WITH NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, AND IT ALSO MAINTAINS THE INTEGRITY AND DESIGN OF THE HOUSE BECAUSE IT IS FITTING INTO THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE IN A RECTANGLE FORM, AND I THINK ONE OF THE BIGGEST REASONS WHY WE THINK THIS PROPOSED LOCATION IS BEST IS BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY ENCROACHES NO FURTHER TO THE WATER OR NO FURTHER TO OUR PARENT NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY THAN THE CURRENT FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE TODAY, SO FITS WITHIN THAT FOOTPRINT.
NOW, WE DID DISCUSS AT THE PREVIOUS HEARING ABOUT THE POTENTIAL OF A SMALLER DESIGN IN THIS PROPOSED AREA, HAVING A SMALLER COURSE THAN WAS PROPOSED, AND SOME OF THE REASONS WHY WE DON'T THINK THAT WOULD
[00:15:01]
BE REDUCING ANY DISTURBANCE IS BECAUSE OF THE SMALLER SQUARE FOOTAGE, YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TO DISTURB THE GROUND BY PUTTING THE SAME, AMOUNT OF POST IN TO THE GROUND.YOU DON'T REALLY REDUCE THE DISTURBANCE.
YOU WOULD NOW THEN THROW OFF THE ALIGNMENT OF THE HOUSE AND YOU WOULD STILL HAVE THIS LITTLE CHUNK OF THE OUTSIDE THAT WOULD STILL NEED A GUTTER AND A DRAIN OUTWARD, THEN YOU WOULD ALSO NEED ANOTHER ONE ONTO THE STREAM PORCH.
THE PROPOSED DESIGN JUST HAS ONE GUTTER GOING ACROSS THE WHOLE END BECAUSE THAT'S THE NEW END TO THE HOUSE, AND HAVING A SMALLER ONE WOULD CREATE A SUBSTANDARD USE OF THE PROPOSED AREA BECAUSE WE WANT IT TO BE A DINING AND LIVING AREA.
I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT WE DID LOOK INTO THIS BASED OFF THE FEEDBACK THAT WE GOT FROM IN THE PREVIOUS HEARING, AND THIS IS WHAT WE DETERMINED THERE.
THEN GOING FORWARD INTO OUR THE NEXT SLIDE, THE BUFFER MANAGEMENT PLAN.
ACCORDING TO THE CRITERIA, WE HAVE A BUFFER MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT HAS CALLS FOR PLANNING 27 NATIVE LARGE SHRUBS.
WE BELIEVE THAT'S A 3,1 OFFSET BASED OF THE AREA THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD DISTURB.
WITH THE LITTLE TREE EMOJI THERE, YOU CAN SEE THAT WE PLAN TO PUT A ROW OF SHRUBS ON THE LINE FOR BOTH NEIGHBORS AND THEN ALSO A LINE OF SHRUBS AROUND THE NEW SCREEN PORCH ITSELF.
THIS IS IN ADDITION TO A BUNCH OF OTHER IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL, BUT SOME IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE MADE TO THE SHORELINE, WHEN WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, WE PUT WAS 30 BUSHES BACK THERE TO HELP WITH EROSION AND TO QUIT THAT.
THIS WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO SOME OF THOSE THINGS THAT WE'VE DONE AS WELL.
IT'S OUR VIEW THAT THIS BUFFER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOLLOWS THE CRITERIA THAT THE CRITICAL AREA COMMISSION CALLS FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND CALLS FOR, AS WELL AS CAROLINE COUNTY.
WITH THE CRITICAL AREA COMMISSION LETTER, IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE LETTER DOESN'T HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS OR REJECTION OF OUR PROPOSED PLAN.
IT'S JUST ASKING US TO DO TWO THINGS OR MEET TWO CONDITIONS.
ONE BEING THAT WE'VE CONSIDERED OTHER AREAS OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH WE JUST DEMONSTRATED AND WENT THROUGH.
THEN WE PROVIDE A PROPER BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN, WHICH WE JUST DID OR WE HAVE IN THIS PLAN.
WE FEEL THAT WE'VE MET THOSE TWO CRITERIA.
THEN THE OTHER PART IS THE COR RULES AND REGULATIONS, AND THE NEXT TWO SLIDES TALK ABOUT SOME OF THOSE COR RULES, AND THEN WE HAVE RESPONSES TO EACH OF THOSE.
I'M HAPPY TO GO THROUGH THEM IF YOU WANT TO, BUT OTHERWISE, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR TAKE COMMENTS BUT THAT'S THE PREPARED SLIDES THAT WE HAVE.
>> THE FIRST ONE THIS IS THE SECOND PAGE.
THE FIRST ONE HERE, COR 270112-04B1, THAT SAYS, DUE TO SPECIAL FEATURES OF THE SITE OR SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PECULIAR TO THE APPLICANT'S LAND OR STRUCTURE, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE LOCAL CRITICAL AREA PROGRAM WOULD RESULT IN AN UNWARRANTED HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT.
OUR RESPONSES TO THAT ARE, SPECIAL FEATURES INCLUDE THAT THE 1969 LAYOUT OF THE EXISTING HOUSE, WHICH PREDATED THE CRITICAL AREA LAW AND THE CONFIGURATION OF THE SHORELINE, WHICH CURVES INWARDS, PUSHING THE 100 FOOT BUFFER DEEPER INTO THE PROPERTY AND LITERAL ENFORCEMENT WOULD DEPRIVE US THE OWNERS OF REASONABLE AND SIGNIFICANT USE OF THE ENTIRE PARCEL SINCE IT WOULD REQUIRE PLACING THE PORCH ON A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD IMPACT THE SEPTIC SYSTEM OR WELL OR THE SIDE YARD PREVENTING ACCESS TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
THEN THE SECOND POINT, COR 270112-04B2 STATES A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE LOCAL CRITICAL AREA PROGRAM
[00:20:05]
WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF A USE OF LAND OR STRUCTURE PERMITTED TO OTHERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE LOCAL CRITICAL AREA PROGRAM.OUR RESPONSE IS, THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION WOULD DEPRIVE US THE OWNERS OF A SCREEN AND PORCH, WHICH IS PERMITTED AND COMMONLY FOUND FEATURE OF MANY HOMES WITHIN THE CRITICAL AREA.
>> CAN I SAY SOMETHING ON THE FIRST ONE?
>> AS FAR AS UNWARRANTED HARDSHIP.
OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE WOULD NEED A VARIANCE TO DO ANYTHING IN OUR BACKYARD OTHER THAN THAT VERY SMALL SPACE RIGHT OFF THE LAUNDRY ROOM THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE BUFFER ZONE.
WE FEEL THAT A HOME OWNER NOT BEING ABLE TO USE ANY SPACE IN THEIR FRONT YARD OR THEIR BACK YARD CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES SOMETHING THAT'S AN UNWARRANTED HARDSHIP. SORRY, IT'S THE FIRST.
>> THEN THE LAST TWO POINTS HERE, COR 270112-04B6, THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT WATER QUALITY OR DIVERSITY OF IMPACT FISH, WILDLIFE, OR PLANT HABITAT WITHIN THE JURISDICTIONS OF THE LOCAL CRITICAL AREA.
IT'S OUR VIEW THAT GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT SUCH FEATURES AND THE APPLICANT WILL BE PROVIDING.
WE HAVE PROVIDED MITIGATION PLANNING WITHIN THE BUFFER TO OFFSET ANY POTENTIAL IMPACTS.
THEN THE LAST RULE HERE, COR 270112-04B7.
THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE CRITICAL AREA LAW, THE REGULATIONS IN THE SUBTITLE AND THE LOCAL CRITICAL AREA PROGRAM.
OUR RESPONSE TO THAT IS GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE CRITICAL AREA LAW, THE REGULATIONS IN COR.
SINCE US, THE APPLICANTS HAVE EVALUATED ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS, SEEKING THE MINIMUM ADJUSTMENT NECESSARY AND IS PROVIDING BUFFER MITIGATION PLANNING.
>> TRAVIS, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD?
>> NO, JUST HERE FOR MORAL SUPPORT.
>> MORAL SUPPORT. [LAUGHTER] I GUESS WE'LL ASK SOME QUESTIONS SO IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO WANT TO GO FIRST, KAREN OR MIKE.
>> WELL, IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, YOU WERE PLANNING ON, THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF STEPS.
THOSE WILL BE REMOVED, OBVIOUSLY.
IS THAT A PAVER PATIO THAT'S CURRENTLY THERE OR A CONCRETE PATIO THAT'S THERE OUTSIDE? BASICALLY WHERE YOU WANT TO BUILD THAT PORCH.
>> NO. YOU ASKED THE PREVIOUS.
WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY AND WE PUT THOSE IN THERE.
>> YEAH, IT WAS JUST DIRT. [INAUDIBLE].
>> YOU JUST DID A BORDER AND DID STONE.
>> I DID THE STONES NOW AND THE LITTLE WOOD THAT'S STICKING UP THERE IS LEFT OVER WOOD FROM THIS BIG, WOOD PILE THING THAT THEY HAD THERE. YOU USE THAT.
>> WELL, I'M STILL THE PERSON OVER HERE THAT'S THE UNWARRANTED HARDSHIP, WHICH IS ALWAYS THE ISSUE.
WE'VE BEEN VERSED IN THAT TO THE DEGREE THAT OUR UNDERSTANDING IS UNWARRANTED HARDSHIP IS, YOU CAN'T GO OUT AND ENJOY YOUR PROPERTY OR YOU HAVE A HOUSE THERE, YOU HAVE ALTERNATE PLACES AND WAYS YOU COULD SHAPE IT AND DO IT.
TWO OR THREE OF THEM DON'T WORK. I GET IT.
IT STILL COULD BE SMALLER, AND THEY WANT TO SEE YOU DO THE LEAST AMOUNT, REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT YOU'VE GOT THE MITIGATION IN PLACE.
I MEAN, I RESPECT WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE ATTEMPTED TO DO.
BUT I THINK THE QUESTION STILL REMAINS.
IS IT TRULY AN UNWARRANTED HARDSHIP? UNWARRANTED HARDSHIP HAS TO BE MET IN ORDER FOR US TO GRANT THE VARIANCE. I DON'T THINK IT HAS.
IT'S NOT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT IT FOR YOU, BECAUSE I DO.
BUT UNWARRANTED HARDSHIP MEANS YOU LITERALLY CANNOT USE YOUR PROPERTY.
[00:25:04]
YOU'RE SITTING THERE ON A LOT THAT YOU CAN'T USE.YOU CAN USE IT, YOU CAN GO OUTSIDE.
YOU GOT BUGS. YOU PROBABLY KNEW THAT WAS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE WHEN YOU BOUGHT THE PROPERTY.
IT SUCKS AND IT'S ALL SAD, BUT THAT'S WHERE WE ARE STILL.
I STILL FEEL LIKE, EVEN THOUGH YOU WANT A DINING AREA AND LIVING AREA, THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP IS NOT I HAVE TO HAVE THAT.
IT'S NOT A, I NEED IT, IT'S, I WANT IT.
IT'S NOT BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND OR I DON'T WISH I COULD SAY, HEY, IT'S A GREAT PLAN.
YOU'RE DOING EXACTLY THE RIGHT THINGS.
BECAUSE ALL OF IT SEEMS RIGHT, BUT BY VIRTUE OF THE CODE, I'M A NO. THAT'S IT.
I MEAN, I'M JUST AN ABSOLUTE NO BECAUSE THE CURRENT SITUATION DOES NOT SAY THE UNWARRANTED HARDSHIP IS MET.
EVERYTHING ELSE YOU'RE DOING IS PERFECT, BUT I'D SAY, YOU NEED TO SLIDE THAT THING IN IN ORDER FOR YOU TO MEET THE UNWARRANTED HARDSHIP.
THAT'S MY TAKE. YOU GUYS HAVE TO SAY WHAT YOU THINK BECAUSE THAT'S ME.
>> WELL, MY FEELING IS AND I GO BACK TO A FEW YEARS AGO WITH SOME TRAINING.
WITH THE STATE THAT WAS HERE BECAUSE THEY FELT LIKE WE WERE MAYBE LETTING A FEW TOO MANY THINGS GO.
WHEN THE MEETING WAS OVER, I ASKED HER, OUTRIGHT.
IF YOU HAVE A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT PRETTY MUCH IS ALL WITHIN ONCE AGAIN, PREDATED.
>> CRITICAL AREAS. MUCH LIKE THIS.
>> CRITICAL AREAS JUST LIKE THIS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T CUT THAT BACK AND NOT BE OUT OF CRITICAL AREAS TO PLACE IT IN THAT, EVEN TO MAKE IT A LITTLE SMALLER LIKE THEY PROPOSED IN THE ONE THING.
THE SHORTENING. STILL IN A CRITICAL AREA, STILL HAS AN IMPACT.
BUT THAT LADY TOLD ME FLAT OUT, YOU CANNOT LET SOMEBODY USE THE PROPERTY IF THERE'S NOT AN OPTION.
THE TWO SIDES DON'T MEET SETBACKS.
THAT'S NOT AN OPTION. THE FRONT PUTS IT ON TOP OF THE SEPTIC.
>> THAT'S NOT AN OPTION. MY MIND STARTS TO GO MORE TOWARDS THE FACT THAT WE'RE GOING TO DENY THEM THE USE OF THAT PROPERTY.
IF THIS HOUSE WAS BUILT IN I BELIEVE, '87 OR '88 AFTER CRITICAL AREAS, THE WHOLE HOUSE WOULD BE OUT OF THE THING AND WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE DEALING WITH THIS.
>> UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE DEALING WITH THIS BECAUSE CERTAIN THINGS HAPPENED AFTER A CERTAIN DATE.
NOT THEIR FAULT. NOT OUR FAULT.
JUST WHAT HAPPENS AND THINGS PROBABLY JUST KEEP GETTING WORSE FROM HERE ON OUT.
I LOOK AT IT AS THE FACT, THE AREA THAT THEY'RE DISTURBING HAS ALREADY BEEN ALTERED AND CHANGED.
EVEN THOUGH IT'S RAIN COULD FLOW THROUGH STONES, BUT IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, A DRIVEWAY, EVEN IF IT'S A STONE DRIVEWAY, IS NOT CONSIDERED IMPERVIOUS.
>> RIGHT. I THINK MAYBE. I'M NOT SURE.
>> BASICALLY, TO ME, WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT AREA, ALREADY AS AN AREA THAT'S NOT IMPERVIOUS TO WATER. I'M JUST TALKING.
TO ME, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'VE KIND OF GIVEN US SOME PRETTY GOOD ANSWERS TO COMAR.
I DON'T THINK THEIR MITIGATION PLAN IS ABOVE AND BEYOND.
I DON'T THINK THEY'RE DOING ANYTHING MORE THAN THEY REALLY NEED TO DO.
I KNOW THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO BUFFER THE SIDES SO THAT THE NEIGHBORS AREN'T IMPACTED AS MUCH.
I GO BACK TO THAT THING AFTER THAT TRAINING THAT THAT LADY SAID, IF IT'S NOT EXCESSIVE, WHICH I DON'T FEEL THIS IS EXCESSIVE, YOU SHOULD NOT DENY A PERSON THE USE, THE ABILITY TO DO SOMETHING.
LIKE I SAID, OPTION, I BELIEVE IT WAS IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ONE AND THREE, BUT ONE AND TWO, WHICH WAS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
THEY CAN'T PUT IT THERE BECAUSE THEY CANNOT MEET THE SETBACKS.
THE OTHER OPTION THAT WAS IN THE FRONT YARD.
WHEN IT AFFECTS WHERE THE SEPTIC IS, [OVERLAPPING] THAT'S NOT GOING TO FLY WITH THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT UPSTAIRS.
>> I JUST LOOK AT IT AS IF WE CAN FEEL THAT THE ISSUES THAT THEY'VE WITH COMAR,
[00:30:03]
DOESN'T AFFECT WATER QUALITY, WHICH I BELIEVE IT WON'T AFFECT THE WATER QUALITY.IS THE VARIANCE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL SPIRIT?
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTION ABOUT ANY OF THE OTHER ISSUES.
IT'S THE UNWARRANTED HARDSHIP.
>> I AGREE, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS SOMEWHAT OF A HARDSHIP TO NOT BE ABLE TO USE THIS AREA IN THE WAY THAT THEY'RE HOPING TO.
THE BUG THING, PROBABLY JUST BECAUSE OF THE AREA OF THE COUNTY THAT THEY'RE IN IS THE REASON THAT THAT BUG THING BECAUSE, I KNOW [INAUDIBLE].
THERE'S A CERTAIN TIME THAT EVERYBODY CALLS THEM SOMETHING DIFFERENT SHEET FLIES, STRAWBERRY FLIES.
YOU CAN'T BE OUTSIDE AND ENJOY YOUR YARD THERE BECAUSE OF THOSE RASCALS.
>> LITERALLY, YOU CANNOT BE OUTSIDE BECAUSE YOU WOULD JUST BE EATEN ALIVE. I DON'T KNOW.
I'M LEANING MORE TOWARDS A POSSIBLE YES, BUT I THINK THAT WE NEED TO DELIBERATE.
WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THE CRITERIA.
>> WELL, WHAT ARE YOU BEFORE WE EVEN START THAT? I WANTED TO HAVE PATRICK WEIGH IN ON THE UNWARRANTED.
>> BECAUSE I'M ON THE FENCE, SO WHAT IS THE COUNTY'S?
>> I WAS TOLD UNWARRANTED HARDSHIP MEANS YOU LITERALLY CAN'T USE IT.
>> BUT YOU'RE DENYING THEM USE OF THEIR PROPERTY.
>> COMAR SAYS, AND THIS IS TITLE 27, SUBTITLE 1, CHAPTER 12 REGARDING VARIANCES IN [INAUDIBLE] IT SAYS, UNWARRANTED HARDSHIP MEANS THAT WITHOUT A VARIANCE, AN APPLICANT SHALL BE DENIED REASONABLE AND SIGNIFICANT USE OF THE ENTIRE PARCEL OR LOT ONCE THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED.
IF YOU GO BACK TO THE TRAINING THAT YOU RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING CRITICAL AREA VARIANCES, THEY EXPANDED ON THAT AND SAID THAT YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER SPECIAL FEATURES OF THE SITE RELATING TO THE APPLICANT'S LINE OF STRUCTURE.
THE FACT THAT THE BUFFER EXISTS IS NOT IN OF ITSELF AN UNWARRANTED HARDSHIP, IS A VERY HIGH STANDARD AND IS WELL BEYOND PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.
THE BOARD SHOULD NOT CONSIDER CONVENIENCE TO THE PROPERTY.
>> SEE, THAT THAT WAS WHERE I WAS IN MY HEAD, THE CONVENIENCE AND ALL THAT STUFF.
I UNDERSTAND THE LOGISTICS AND WHY THEY WANT IT, AND THAT'S PERFECTLY SENSIBLE, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT PUTTING OURSELVES IN JEOPARDY WITH HOW WE WEIGH ON THIS.
>> THE APPLICANT HAS THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING IT.
WITHOUT THE VARIANCE, THE APPLICANT WILL BE DENIED THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IF IT IS BOTH SIGNIFICANT AND REASONABLE.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD, WE'VE USED IN THE PAST, HE DEALT WITH A SIMILAR IN CAROLINE COUNTY.
>> HE REFERENCED SUPREME COURT OF MARYLAND, I GUESS, A DECISION BETWEEN [INAUDIBLE] COASTAL TRUST AND [INAUDIBLE] WHERE THE COURT SUMMARIZED, IN SUMMARY, IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH AN UNWARRANTED HARDSHIP AN APPLICANT HAS THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING IT.
WITHOUT A VARIANCE, THE APPLICANT WILL BE TO DENIED THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IF IT IS BOTH SIGNIFICANT AND REASONABLE.
>> THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE SAYING. SIGNIFICANT AND REASONABLE.
LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT'S SIGNIFICANT AND WHAT'S REASONABLE.
REASONABLE IS IT'S REASONABLE TO WANT TO HAVE A SCREENED PORCH. THAT PART I SEE.
IT'S REASONABLE TO HAVE A SCREEN PORCH ON A WATERFRONT PROPERTY. THAT'S REASONABLE.
HOW DO WE WEIGH SIGNIFICANCE? IT'S SIGNIFICANT IN THE SUMMERTIME.
IT DOESN'T SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER YOUR USE OF YOUR PROPERTY BECAUSE YOU HAVE A HOME TO LIVE IN, BUT IT'S SIGNIFICANT IF YOU WANT TO ENJOY THE OUTDOORS, BUT I DON'T KNOW.
THAT'S MY STRUGGLE BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN PUSHED ON US THAT IT HAS TO BE.
>> I CAN VOUCH [INAUDIBLE] IS THE SAME WAY [INAUDIBLE] A COUPLE OF MONTHS.
>> KATHERINE OR MATT, I DON'T WHO'S CONTROL IT, CAN YOU PULL UP EXHIBIT 9, PAGE 45.
>> EXHIBIT 9? THE SIGN POSTING?
>> THAT'S AN OLD COPY OF THAT PICTURE. HOLD ON.
>> I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THAT PICTURE IN THIS ONE.
>> WE DON'T? DO YOU HAVE A PICTURE OF THE BACK OF THE HOUSE?
[00:35:01]
>> THAT'S WHAT I WANT. THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH.
>> WELL, ACTUALLY, THERE'S A BIGGER ONE.\.
>> THERE'S A COUPLE MORE. KEEP GOING.
>> THAT'S GOOD. THAT'S THE ONE. YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT BACK DOOR, THERE'S A BIG WINDOW.
TO THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, THE BUMP OUT, WHAT IS THAT ROOM?
>> THAT'S A SUN ROOM. THAT WAS ALWAYS THERE.
IS IT JUST LIKE A LIVING ROOM? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
>> IT'S A LIVING SPACE THAT HAS CONDITIONED.
>> [INAUDIBLE] IT'S NOT TECHNICALLY IT'S ALL CONDITIONED AS PART OF IT.
>> YOU JUST BASICALLY REMODEL WHAT WAS ALREADY THERE.
>> IS THERE ANY MORE ELABORATION THAT YOU CAN DO ON THE SIGNIFICANT PART? I FEEL LIKE THIS IS PUTTING US IN A POSITION WHERE IT'S BASED ON WHAT DO WE SEE AS SIGNIFICANT? ANYBODY COULD SIT UP HERE AND SAY, WELL, WE THINK IT'S SIGNIFICANT, AND I COULD SAY, FOR THEIR SAKE, IT'S SIGNIFICANT, AND IT'S REASONABLE.
AM I SUPPOSED TO JUST GO, WELL, FORGET THE FACT THAT THE CRITICAL AREA COMAR SAYS, UNWARRANTED HARDSHIP AND WHATEVER, EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW THAT THEY SAID, DON'T DO IT UNLESS THEY CAN'T USE THEIR PROPERTY.
AM I PUTTING MY FOOT IN MY MOUTH, SAYING, WELL, I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE SAYING? IS IT REASONABLE? IS IT SIGNIFICANT? I DON'T KNOW.
>> KAREN, I JUST FEEL THAT FOR THE THREE MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR, THAT IF THERE WAS A SCREENED PORCH, THEY COULD AT LEAST GO OUTSIDE AND ENJOY THE OUTDOORS EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE NOT REALLY OUTSIDE.
THEY CAN'T SIT ON WHAT'S THERE NOW AUGUST THROUGH OCTOBER BECAUSE OF THE BUGS THAT ARE THERE.
>> BUT THAT'S JUST A CONVENIENCE, YOU UNDERSTAND. THAT'S A CONVENIENCE.
>> SEE, I GET HUNG UP ON THE WORDING OF THE PROPERTY.
BECAUSE THEY DON'T USE THE WHOLE PROPERTY.
THEY DON'T SIT OUT IN THEIR FRONT YARD, AND DON'T SIT ON THEIR SIDE YARDS.
>> I GET IT, BUT THIS UNWARRANTED HARDSHIP BASICALLY COMES DOWN TO THEY WILL NOT BE DEPRIVED OF THE USE OF THEIR PROPERTY IN ITS ENTIRETY OR IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM OTHER THAN NOT PUTTING A SCREENED PORCH ON.
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? IF WE'RE GOING TO REALLY GO TO THE LETTER OF THE LAW, IT IS VERY BASIC, AND IT IS VERY CUT AND DRY.
IT'S ABOUT CONVENIENCE, IT'S ABOUT WHAT WE WANT, NOT ABOUT WHAT WE NEED.
IT DOESN'T INFRINGE UPON YOUR NEED.
>> NOW LET'S ASK THE QUESTION.
>> TO THAT POINT THOUGH, WOULDN'T DENYING A PROPERTY OWNER THE USE OF ANY OF THEIR YARD, WE WOULD NEED A VARIANCE TO DO ANYTHING ON THE PROPERTY.
ISN'T THAT A HARDSHIP? WE CAN'T EVEN INSTALL [INAUDIBLE].
ANYTHING IN THAT BACK YARD AND FRONT YARD BECAUSE OF THE SEPTIC, WE WOULD NEED A VARIANCE TO DO ANYTHING. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.
>> ISN'T THAT THE HARDSHIP? I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING, I GUESS, YOUR POINT OF WHY.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT, BUT ALSO, IN A SENSE, WE WANT TO USE OUR BACK YARD, PERIOD.
WE JUST FEEL LIKE WE CONSIDER THE BEST CASE TO USE THAT SPACE WITH AS LITTLE IMPACT AS WE CAN TO THE ENVIRONMENT, TO OUR NEIGHBORS, TO ANYTHING ELSE.
STILL, I JUST FEEL LIKE IT'S CLEAR.
I DON'T THINK THE INTEGRITY OF THE COMMISSION OR THE LAWS OR REGULATIONS IS TO SAY, AS A PROPERTY OWNER, YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING IN YOUR YARD TO NO FAULT OF YOUR OWN.
>> I THINK IT'S THE TERMINOLOGY, REASONABLE AND SIGNIFICANT.
IF YOU'RE A REASONABLE PERSON CONSIDERING THIS THIS ISSUE, I THINK IT'S BOTH A REASONABLE AND SIGNIFICANT ITEM TO THEM, TO THEIR FAMILY, TO THEIR KIDS.
>> ANYBODY IN BUSINESS OF PROPERTIES WOULD SAY IT'S SIGNIFICANT TO HAVE
[00:40:02]
A SCREENED PORCH RATHER THAN SITTING OUTSIDE ON THE LAWN AND GET EATEN.>> TO KELLY'S POINT, I DON'T SEE HOW ANYBODY WOULD VIEW A DENIAL.
GIVEN HOW THE ENTIRE BACK YARD SITS IN THE CRITICAL AREA, HOW A DENIAL WOULD BE SEEN AS ANYTHING BUT A DENIAL OF BEING ABLE TO USE THE BACK YARD FOR ANYTHING, AND THAT'S TO FINISH YOUR POINT.
>> THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF A VARIANCE PROCESS, IS FOR THESE VERY SPECIFIC SITUATIONS THAT DON'T APPLY TO EVERYONE.
IT APPLIES SPECIFICALLY WHERE OUR HOUSE WAS BUILT, WHICH BEFORE ALL THE REGULATIONS WE HAD NO CONTROL OVER.
>> I JUST THINK THE WHOLE POINT IS IT'S NOT IF WE CAN USE THE LOT.
YES, WE HAVE A HOUSE THERE, WE DO LIVE THERE, BUT IT'S MORE LIKE DOES THIS SPECIFIC APPLICATION FOR THE VARIANCE MAKE A REASONABLE REQUEST FOR US TO USE OUR PROPERTY AND ARE WE MEETING THOSE REQUIREMENTS? HAVE WE CONSIDERED EVERY OTHER AREA? HAVE WE COME UP WITH A MITIGATION PLAN, WHICH IF WE NEED TO DO MORE MITIGATION, WE'RE WILLING TO DO THAT.
I GUESS IT'S JUST HARD FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND.
THAT'S WHAT THIS PROCESS IS FOR.
THE APPLICATION, I FEEL LIKE WE SUBMITTED, EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IS SHOWING THAT, THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS WHOLE THING, IS FOR THESE VERY EXTREMELY SPECIFIC CASES THAT SAYING SOMEONE CAN'T USE THEIR ENTIRE PROPERTY, THAT DOESN'T SEEM REASONABLE.
>> WELL, I HEAR YOU AND I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I THINK WHAT YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE ALSO IS THAT WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION BASED ON THE WAY THE LAWS ARE WRITTEN AND WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.
IF WE DON'T FOLLOW THROUGH AND WE SAY YES TO YOU AND THEN THE CRITICAL AREA PEOPLE DECIDE THAT THEY DON'T AGREE WITH THAT, AND THEN THERE'S AN APPEAL AND THEN IT CAN BE A WHOLE BIG BLOWBACK.
WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING THINGS CORRECTLY. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? MY DESIRE IS TO SAY 100%, GO PUT YOUR STUFF ON THERE, GO DO IT.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT, AND I DO SEE THAT YOU GUYS HAVE MADE THE EFFORT, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ADDING THINGS UP AND IT MAKES SENSE.
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING MAKES ABSOLUTE SENSE TO ME, BUT SO DOES WHAT I WAS TAUGHT AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE IN THIS CRAZY THING.
I DON'T KNOW. IF YOU WANT TO BEGIN DELIBERATION, IF YOU DON'T, IF YOU HAVE THE MORE QUESTIONS.
>> I WANTED TO SAY I GUESS FROM THE [INAUDIBLE] THIS IS JUST FROM LAST YEAR.
THE BOARD FOUND THAT A REASONABLE PERSON COULD SUBJECTIVELY CONCLUDE THE DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST, WHICH WAS REALLY THE EXACT SAME THING, A SMALL PORCH ON THE BACK OF HOUSE WOULD DEPRIVE THE PROPERTY OWNER OF A RIGHT COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS.
PROPERTY OWNERS RIGHT ALONG THE SAME STREET, ALL THOSE HOUSES WERE BUILT IN THE SAME TIME, THEY ALL IN THE IN THE BUFFER.
>> TO YOUR POINT ABOUT THE CONCERN WITH THE COMMISSION, THEY SENT US THAT LETTER.
WE REVIEWED IT, AND THAT LETTER WAS NOT A DENIAL OR AN OBJECTION TO THE PLAN.
IT WAS SAYING THAT IF YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PLAN, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CONSIDER ALL THE OTHER AREAS AND THAT WE HAVE AN APPROVED MITIGATION PLAN.
OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THAT LETTER IS WE FEEL LIKE WE'VE MET THE COMMISSION REQUIREMENTS.
>> WELL, LET ME JUST READ THE PORTION OF THE LETTER THAT I FEEL IS THE PROBLEM.
IN ORDER TO GRANT THIS VARIANCE REQUEST, THE APPLICANT MUST DEMONSTRATE, MUST, AND THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MUST FIND THAT ALL VARIANCE STANDARDS PER COMAR 27.01.12 HAVE BEEN MET.
IN PARTICULAR, THE BOARD MUST DETERMINE IF THE PROPOSAL MEETS THE STANDARD OF UNWARRANTED HARDSHIP, GIVEN THERE APPEARS TO BE OPPORTUNITY TO RECONFIGURE THE PROPOSED PORCH TO BE PARTIALLY OR ENTIRELY OUTSIDE OF THE BUFFER.
WE KNOW THAT VARIANCES TO OTHER ZONING SETBACKS MUST BE EXPLORED BEFORE CONSIDERING A CRITICAL AREA VARIANCE.
IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT THAT UNWARRANTED HARDSHIP, AND WE HAVE GONE AROUND AND AROUND ABOUT THIS WITH OTHER CASES AS WELL.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE, AND YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT.
I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS IS SAYING.
IT SAYS, OPPORTUNITY TO RECONFIGURE THE PROPOSED PORCH TO BE PARTIALLY OR ENTIRELY.
LIKE I SAID, AND THIS IS THE OTHER THING, IF YOU CAN REDUCE THE SIZE, I'D HAVE NO PROBLEM SAYING YES TO YOU.
[00:45:01]
>> I KNOW, BUT MINIMUM IMPACT IS WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR.
MINIMUM, NOT GIVING YOU ALL OF WHAT YOU WANT, BUT MINIMIZING IT SO YOU GET WHAT YOU WANT.
>> THEY INITIALLY THEY WANTED IT MUCH BIGGER.
WE'VE DOWNSIZED OUR INTERNAL [INAUDIBLE].
>> DO THEY KNOW THAT IT'S ALREADY DISTURBED?
>> KATHERINE, CAN YOU PULL UP THE DOWN SHOT OF THE PROPERTY?
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST THE PLAN?
>> YEAH. BECAUSE IT SHOWS THE 100-FOOT BUFFER CUT THROUGH IT.
>> IT CUTS THROUGH THE MAIN PART OF THE HOUSE.
>> LITTLE BIT MORE, KATHERINE.
>> I GUESS IN HER STATEMENT IT DOESN'T MENTION MAKING THIS SMALLER.
IT SEEMS LIKE THE INTENT IS JUST TO GET A PART OF THE PORCH OUTSIDE THE BUFFER, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THE COMMON OPTION.
>> CAN I ASK THOUGH? THE QUESTION IS, IF WE DO CHANGE THE SIZE, WHO IS GOING TO DETERMINE WHAT THE APPROPRIATE SIZE IS. CAN WE REDUCE IT A FOOT? CAN WE REDUCE IT FIVE FEET? I FEEL LIKE FOR THE DESIGN OF THE HOUSE, THE AREA THAT'S BEING DISTURBED, THIS IS THE MINIMAL IMPACT.
I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IN YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER, BUT I FEEL LIKE THAT'S JUST ANOTHER ARBITRARY GUIDELINE TO THEN SOMEONE HAS TO FIGURE THAT OUT.
>> I'D GO BACK TO THE ONE SENTENCE IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH FOR THE LETTER.
THE BOARD MUST DETERMINE IF THE PROPOSAL MEETS THE STANDARD OF UNWARRANTED HARDSHIP, GIVEN THERE APPEARS TO BE OPPORTUNITY TO RECONFIGURE THE PROPOSED PORCH TO BE PARTIALLY OR ENTIRELY OUTSIDE THE BUFFER.
>> YOU'VE EXPLORED SEVERAL OTHER OPTIONS. WE SEE THAT.
>> WE HAVE EXPLORED OPTIONS, AND THOSE OPTIONS DON'T REALLY SEEM TO BE VITAL.
>> TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE PORCH, BUT STILL STAY WITHIN THE HUNDRED FOOT BUFFER AREA BECAUSE NO MATTER WHAT SIZE THEY MAKE IT, THEY CAN MAKE IT 6X6, IT'S STILL IN THE BUFFER.
I KNOW YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT IMPACT.
THERE'S 1, 2, 3, 04, 5, 6, SIX PIERS TO HOLD THE PORCH UP, AND THERE'S TWO PIERS THAT ARE GOING TO HOLD THE STEPS.
THAT'S THE AMOUNT OF IMPACT THAT THEY'RE PUTTING INTO THE GROUND.
THEY'RE NOT PUTTING A WHOLE FOOTER THERE.
THEY'RE PUTTING PIERS, AND THERE'S SIX OF THEM.
BY REDUCING IT, FROM WHAT I CAN SEE IN THIS ONE, THAT PICTURE RIGHT THERE, THERE MIGHT ONLY BE FOUR.
WHAT ARE WE TALKING? A THREE-FOOT, FOUR-FOOT HOLE ROUGHLY.
>> PROBABLY A FOOT-AND-A-HALF, OR TWO FOOT.
>> I DON'T SEE A WHOLE LOT OF IMPACT THAT'S HAPPENING THERE OTHER THAN THAT THEY'RE GOING TO COVER THAT AREA, BUT THEY ALREADY HAVE FIGURED OUT HOW TO HANDLE THE WATER AND TO MOVE THE WATER.
>> WHAT'S THE RED OUTLINE RIGHT THERE ON THAT PICTURE?
>> THAT'S A SMALLER PROPOSED PORCH.
>> IT'S JUST A VISUAL REFERENCE TO WHAT [INAUDIBLE] IS TALKING ABOUT.
IT'S NOT A SCALE DRAWING OR ANYTHING.
>> NO. WE GET IT. IT'S 12'6X30.
I UNDERSTAND THE LOGISTICS OF WANTING TO KEEP IT NEAT AND ALL THAT, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S OUR GOAL TO KEEP AS MUCH IMPACT IN THE BUFFER TO THE MINIMUM.
>> WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS SPECIFICALLY?
>> WELL, JUST ANYTHING AT ALL THAT'S PUT INTO THE BUFFER IS AN IMPACT.
NO MATTER HOW YOU SLICE IT, IT'S IMPACTING BECAUSE IT SHOULDN'T BE THERE, BECAUSE THE CRITICAL AREAS SAID YOU CAN'T DO IT ANYMORE.
>> BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S LAWN AREA, SO YOU'RE TAKING [OVERLAPPING] FROM THE FEW SQUARE FEET OF LAWN AREA.
IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S A FOREST. [OVERLAPPING]
[00:50:01]
>> LANDS OR VEGETATIVE HABITAT.
>> THERE'S A 175-FOOT WELL CLOSER TO THE WATER THAN THIS ENTIRE THING.
I DON'T THINK THAT DISTURBS ANYTHING ELSE.
>> I DON'T THINK WHEN THEY WERE HERE BEFORE IN JULY THAT THEY HAD TRIED TO DETERMINE ANY OTHER LOCATION FOR THIS PORCH TO GO.
THIS WAS BASICALLY THE PLACE THEY WANTED THE PORCH.
>> I KNOW THAT THEY'VE MADE THE EFFORT. ABSOLUTELY.
>> TO ME, THEY'VE MADE A LOT OF EFFORT.
>> I'M NOT DENYING THAT AT ALL.
>> TO TRY TO COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT OPTION.
>> WITH THE SAME OPTION, HAVING REVIEWED OTHER OPTIONS.
>> BUT WE COME BACK TO THE SAME THING.
LIKE I SAID, TO ME, AND THIS IS ME, DOWNSIZE THAT PORCH.
I DON'T CARE IF THEY WENT 10X20.
THERE'S STILL 100% IN THE OTHER FOOT BUFFER.
>> I GET IT, BUT THE IMPACT IS STILL MINIMIZED.
THAT'S WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO.
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO MINIMIZE HOW MUCH YOU IMPACT THE BUFFER.
>> BUT THAT'S WHY ALSO, I GO TO THE FACT OF THE ONE SET OF PLANS THAT SHOWS BASICALLY SIX HOLES BEING BORED INTO THE GROUND.
>> WE MADE 16-FOOT LONG DIMENSIONAL LONGER. WE PULLED IT BACK.
WE DIDN'T ENCOURAGE ANY CLOSER TO MEAN HIGH WATER.
WE PUMPED IT RIGHT BACK TO ONE OF THE EXISTING PUMPS OUT THERE.
>> DOES THAT ADD TO COST BECAUSE NOW YOU HAVE TO CUT ALL THOSE?
>> I SAY, LET'S GO TO DELIBERATION AND WE DO THE AREA VARIANCE FIRST, AND THEN WE GO TO THE CRITICAL AREA.
LET'S DO THAT. LET'S JUST RUN THROUGH AND SEE WHERE WE'RE AT.
[Deliberation]
ANYTHING ELSE YOU GUYS WANT TO ADD OR ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT BEFORE WE GO INTO DELIBERATION? I THINK YOU'VE MADE YOUR POINTS VERY WELL, AND I DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.I'M JUST TRYING TO BE AS FAIR AS I CAN AND LISTEN TO EVERYTHING.
I THINK WE CAN SAFELY SAY, WE'LL DO OUR BEST.
>> I HAD A PRINT OUT OF THE DECISION THEY MADE IN TALBOT COUNTY.
IT'S GOT SUPREME COURT CASES ALL REFERENCED IN IT.
>> YOU GAVE US SOME STUFF OUT OF IT.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S IRRELEVANT AT THIS POINT, BUT I THINK IT'S TOO LATE AT THIS POINT TO TAKE THAT IN.
YOU BROUGHT THEM UP, AND THAT'S GREAT.
>> LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE INTO DELIBERATION.
NOW, AFTER HEARING EVERYONE'S TESTIMONY AND SUMMARY STATEMENTS, THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS NOW CLOSED FOR DELIBERATION.
AT THIS TIME, THE AUDIENCE MAY NOT SPEAK OR MAKE COMMENTS UNLESS THE BOARD ASKS FOR CLARIFICATION.
THE PUBLIC MAY STAY DURING THE DELIBERATION OR THEY MAY CHOOSE TO LEAVE.
YOU CAN CALL THE PLANNING OFFICE IN THE MORNING TO ASK FOR A DECISION BY THE BOARD.
ANYONE THAT OPPOSE THE DECISION OF THE BOARD MAY APPEAL THE DECISION BY FILING A PETITION FOR THE JUDICIAL REVIEW BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CAROLINE COUNTY.
WE'RE DELIBERATING. LET'S DO THE AREA VARIANCE STUFF FIRST.
A WRITTEN APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AND SIGNED BY THE APPLICANTS.
>> WE DO HAVE THAT. IT'S APPLICATIONS 3.[OVERLAPPING]
>> WAS A PUBLIC HEARING DULY ADVERTISED? YES, IT WAS.
>> WHAT IS THE ZONING SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE?
>> IS THAT THE RIGHT VERSION? THAT DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT.
>> WHAT IS THE ZONING SETBACK REQUIREMENT? WHAT IS IT FOR THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE? AT THIS POINT, IT DOESN'T MATTER. THAT'S IRRELEVANT.
[00:55:01]
>> SETBACKS ARE MET. IT'S NOT A PROBLEM, OTHER THAN BEING IN THE CRITICAL AREA, WHICH IS DIFFERENT.
>> HOW STRICT WOULD THE APPLICATION OF SUCH REQUIREMENT POSE A DIFFICULTY TO THE PROPERTY OWNER?
>> THIS IS WHERE WE'RE AT A DIFFERENCE.
BUT I FEEL LIKE DENIAL WOULD NOT ALLOW THEM ACCESS OF THE OUTSIDE PART OF THE YARD FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF THE YEAR, WHICH IS PRETTY MUCH ONE OF THE NICER PERIODS OF THE YEAR TO BE OUTSIDE.
>> IT'S WHAT PEOPLE TYPICALLY WANT TO ENJOY WHEN THEY'RE ON THE WATER. WE GET THAT.
>> I FEEL LIKE THE OLD SUN ROOM, THEY DIDN'T CLOSE IT IN.
>> IT'S NOT LIKE THAT WAS A PORCH, AND AFTER THEY BOUGHT IT, THEY TURNED IT FROM A PORCH INTO A SUN ROOM.
IT'S A CONDITION LIVING AREA OF THE HOME.
>> ACTUALLY, WE SHOULDN'T CALL IT THAT.[OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S A LIVING OR A FAMILY AREA.
PROBABLY GOING TO BE A KIDS PLAYROOM.
>> IS SUCH A DIFFICULTY THE RESULT OR SPECIAL CONDITION AND CIRCUMSTANCES NOT GENERALLY SHARED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT?
>> WELL, IT'S DEFINITELY DIFFERENT BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT IT'S IN THE CRITICAL AREAS.
IT WAS BUILT BEFORE THE CRITICAL AREA LAW.
THOSE ARE ALL THINGS THAT HAVE WEIGHED HEAVILY AGAINST THEM, AND THAT'S NOT THEIR FAULT.
>> GO AWAY, THING. SORRY, GUYS.
I DIDN'T MEAN TO SAY THAT OUT LOUD.
I HAVE A LOVE HATE RELATIONSHIP WITH THESE COMPUTERS.
BUT I'M TRYING TO GET TO THE EXHIBIT THAT SHOWS NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE ON THAT GANNON DRIVE, THEY'RE ALL PRETTY MUCH LAID OUT A LOT THE SAME.
LOT 24, IT'S WAY UP IN THE UPPER-LEFT HAND CORNER, OR IT MIGHT BE 18 AND 19 THAT GOES INTO THE WATER AREA.
BUT I BELIEVE ALL OF THOSE ON THAT OUTSIDE ARE WITHIN CRITICAL AREA, FROM MY KNOWLEDGE OF BEING DOWN THAT ROAD BEFORE.
>> WELL, THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS BEFORE CRITICAL AREA.
>> SIX. IS SUCH A DIFFICULTY THE RESULT OR CONDUCT OF THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S PREDECESSOR?
>> CLEARLY, IT WAS ALL BUILT AND IT WAS ALL DONE PRIOR TO THEIR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY.
DEFINITELY NOT. IT'S NOT FROM THEIR CONDUCT, NO.
>> DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT, MIKE?
>> IS THE VARIANCE GRANTED THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO AFFORD RELIEF?
>> THAT'S ONE THAT WE'RE BACK AND FORTH ABOUT.
I DON'T THINK IT'S THE MINIMUM, BUT I THINK IT'S WHAT MAKES THE MOST SENSE.
>> THIS IS THE WAY I'M GOING TO WORD.
I THINK IT IS WITHIN REASON TO SAY THAT IT IS PROBABLY MINIMUM BECAUSE ANY HOMEOWNER WANTS TO KEEP THEIR HOUSE FROM LOOKING CUT UP AND CHOPPED UP.
>> OF COURSE. [OVERLAPPING] TO KEEP THE HARMONY OF THE PROPERTY BY DOING THE MINIMUM.
>> TO COME OUT AND BORDER EXISTING PARTS OF THE HOUSE RATHER THAN SETTING BACK HERE AND SETTING BACK HERE.
I THINK THAT THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING EXCESSIVE.
>> WE CAN AGREE THAT IT'S NOT MINIMUM, BUT IT'S NOT EXCESSIVE.
>> IT'S NOT EXCESSIVE. BECAUSE TO ME, IF IT WAS EXCESSIVE, THEY'D WANT TO GO OUT, WHAT WE'RE CALLING THE SUN ROOM, FAMILY ROOM.
>> CAN WE SAY THAT IT'S THE MINIMUM NECESSARY?
>> IF I WAS THE HOMEOWNER, I FEEL LIKE IT WOULD BE THE MINIMUM THAT I WOULD WANT TO DO.
>> YOU PUT A TABLE OUT THERE, 12'6.
>> YOU CUT IT BACK TO 10-FOOT.
>> YOU HAVE NO ROOM TO WALK AROUND. I GET IT.
I UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT FOR WHAT YOU CAN DO THERE.
HOW ARE WE FINDING ON THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO AFFORD RELIEF? ARE WE SAYING IT IS OR ARE WE SAYING IT ISN'T?
>> TO GIVE YOU A DECENT LEGITIMATE ANSWER AS TO WHY IT'S MINIMUM,
[01:00:01]
I'M GOING TO JUST GO BACK TO WHAT I SAID.IF IT WAS NOT MINIMUM, THEY WOULD BE TRYING TO GO OUT, MAYBE WRAP AROUND AND GO CONNECT OVER TO THE MASTER SUITE SO THEY COULD COME OUT THE SUITE AND WALK AROUND AND GO, AND THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR THAT.
THEY'RE JUST ASKING TO BE ABLE TO COME OUT, I BELIEVE A BACK DOOR OR OFF OF THAT SUN ROOM, AS WE'RE CALLING IT, TO GO INTO THE PORCH AREA.
TO BE ABLE TO NOT BE IN THE BOATS, BUT TO STILL BE OUTSIDE.
>> I AGREE WITH MIKE ON THAT ONE.
>> THEN 2-1. YOU GUYS, YOU WIN ON THAT ONE, WHICH IS FINE.
>> EIGHT. IS THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE ZONING CHAPTER AND WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO ADJACENT PROPERTY, THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, OR PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY, OR WELFARE?
>> WELL, CERTAINLY, IT GOES WITHIN THE HARMONY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IF YOU LIVE ON THE WATER AND YOU'RE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU'VE EITHER GOT A SCREENED IN PORCH, OR YOU WANT ONE, OR YOU'VE GOT SOME WAY TO USE THE OUTDOORS.
IT DEFINITELY IS IN HARMONY WITH WHAT OTHERS ARE DOING IN THERE.
>> WELL, LOOK AT WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW.
01, 2, 3, FOUR PROPERTIES TO THE LEFT.
OBVIOUSLY, THAT WAS DONE PRIOR TO THE PROPERTY CRITICAL AREAS, BUT THERE'S A SWIMMING POOL RIGHT THERE THAT ON A MEAN HIGH TIDE IS GOING TO BE FILLED WITH SALTWATER.
>> THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR SOMETHING UNREASONABLE FOR THAT AREA. I THINK THAT ONE IS MET.
>> I DON'T THINK IT'S UNREASONABLE FOR THAT AREA.
>> I AGREE WITH THAT. IS THE CONDITION, SITUATION, OR INTENDED USE OF THE PROPERTY CONCERN NOT OF SO GENERAL OR RECURRING A NATURE AS TO MAKE PRACTICAL AND GENERAL AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CHAPTER?
>> THERE'S PLENTY OF PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN THAT WEIRD THING, BUT IT'S FEW AND FAR BETWEEN.
IT'S A VERY UNIQUE SITUATION THAT THE BULK OF THESE HOUSES ARE IN THE CRITICAL AREA AND THEY WERE BUILT BEFORE THE TIME.
IT'S NOT ALL OVER THE PLACE THAT THIS IS THE CASE, AND IT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE THE CHAPTER CHANGE, NO.
>> IN OUR TIME OF SERVING ON THIS BOARD, WE HAVE NOT HEARD A LARGE QUANTITY OF THIS TYPE OF SCENARIO.
>> IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CRITICAL AREA, WILL IT GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE ADVERSELY AFFECT WATER QUALITY, IMPACT FISH, WILDLIFE, PLANT, HABITAT, AND WILL THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE CRITICAL AREA LAW AND THE ZONING CHAPTER?
>> WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THAT.
BUT AT THIS POINT, I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO ADVERSELY AFFECT WATER QUALITY BASED ON THE IMPROVEMENT BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE SOME IMPERVIOUS AREA.
THAT'S ALREADY IN PLACE THERE, AND THEY'VE ALSO AGREED TO DOING THE MEDICATION, SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE AN ISSUE.
>> WAS A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP INDICATED IF SO, THE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT WASN'T BROUGHT UP. WE CAN SKIP THAT ONE.
>> WE CAN SKIP IT. IF APPROVED, WILL THERE BE ANY ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OR SAFEGUARDS THAT WE FEEL WE SHOULD IMPOSE?
>> WHATEVER THE STAFF REPORT SAID AND WHATEVER OMAR REQUIRES.
THEY HAVE TO MEET THOSE. I THINK WE'RE GOOD ON THAT.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING ADDITIONAL THAT WE NEED TO REQUIRE.
>> YOU WANT TO DO THE CRITICAL AREA VARIANCE STANDARDS?
>> MOST OF THOSE, AS YOU GO THROUGH THEM, THEY'RE GOING TO BE DUPLICATING WHAT WE JUST DID, BUT WE'LL GO AHEAD AND SAY THE SAME THING OVER AGAIN, AND WE'LL JUST DEAL WITH THE HARDSHIP PART AS THE FINAL ONE AND SEE IF WE CAN COME TO A DECISION.
>> IN CONSIDERATION THE APPLICATION FOR THE VARIANCE, CAROLINE COUNTY SHALL PRESUME THAT THE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY IN THE CRITICAL AREA THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE APPLICATION AND FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUIRED DOES NOT CONFORM WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES ARTICLE TITLE 8, SUBTITLE 18, CODE M TITLE 27 IN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ORDINANCE.
UNWARRANTED HARDSHIP MEANS THAT WITHOUT A VARIANCE, APPLICANT WOULD BE DENIED REASONABLE AND SIGNIFICANT USE OF THE ENTIRE PARCEL OR LOT FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED.
[01:05:04]
>> THAT'S THE ONE WE HAVE TO HIT.
EVERYTHING ELSE IS MET. IT'S JUST THAT ONE THING.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TALK IT OUT.
YOU GUYS KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT, BUT I ALSO AM WILLING TO CONCEDE.
IF YOU GUYS AGREE, THEN YOU DO YOU.
I CAN BE THE ONE SAY NO AND IT'LL STILL FLY.
>> I JUST FEEL LIKE THE WORDING.
>> OF ENTIRE PROPERTY SHOULD NOT PLAY INTO THIS.
I UNDERSTAND IT. THAT'S WHY I'M DOING AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT.
THAT'S WHY I'M DOING EVERYTHING THAT I'M DOING ON MY PIECE OF PROPERTY TO AVOID SITTING OUT THERE.
>> BUT I JUST FEEL LIKE THE OUTREACH IS TOO GREAT.
THE DENIAL DOES NOT AFFECT THE WHOLE PROPERTY.
BUT IT DOES AFFECT A CERTAIN AREA OF THE PROPERTY AND THAT AREA TO PROPERTY.
OR THEY WOULDN'T HAVE GONE THROUGH THE EFFORT TO MAKE A PATIO AREA WHERE THEY WANT TO SIT AND ENJOY THE OUTDOORS.
IT'S CONVENIENT TO THE REST ROOM OF THE HOUSE.
IT'S CONVENIENT TO GO IN AND GET CRACKERS AND CHEESE AND A DRINK AND SIT BACK DOWN OUTSIDE.
>> WINE. YOU'RE PAINTING THE PICTURE NOW. I GOT IT.
[LAUGHTER] I TOTALLY GET. [OVERLAPPING]
>> BECAUSE I HAVE THE SAME PICTURE.
>> I KNOW. LOOK, I WANT TO HAVE THAT PICTURE AND I WANT THEM TO HAVE THIS PICTURE, SO YOU'RE DOING GREAT.
>> I'M NOT PUSHING TO GIVE THEM THIS BECAUSE OF WHAT I HAVE. [OVERLAPPING].
>> OR HAVE. I'M PUSHING THIS BECAUSE I BELIEVE MY WAY OF READING THE LETTER.
>> YOUR INTERPRETATION IS [OVERLAPPING] SIGNIFICANT USE.
>> IT DENIES THEM USE OF THEIR PROPERTY.
>> THAT IS SIGNIFICANT. THAT IS. IT IS SIGNIFICANT.
>> IF YOU WERE SOMEBODY THAT DIDN'T LIKE THE OUTDOORS, THEY WOULDN'T EVEN BE ASKING FOR THIS.
OBVIOUSLY, THEY LIKE THE OUTDOORS.
THEY WANT TO HAVE FAMILY TIME IN THE OUTDOORS.
PART OF THIS TIME OF THE YEAR, THEY'RE ONLY GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE OUTDOORS WITHIN A SCREENED IN AREA.
THE OTHER TIME OF THE YEAR, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S STILL THERE, BUT IN THIS ONE PICTURE, YOU CAN SEE SOME SEEDING DOWN NEAR THE RIVER.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S STILL THERE, IT'S NOT.
>> IT'S NOT RELEVANT TO THIS, BUT OBVIOUSLY THE TIMES OF YEAR THAT THEY WANT TO SIT DOWN THERE AND BE ABLE TO ENJOY BEING RIGHT AT THE WATER. THEY CAN.
BUT I FEEL LIKE DENYING THIS ALSO DENIES THEM USE OF A PIECE OF THEIR PROPERTY THAT THEY ALREADY INTEND TO BE ABLE TO USE.
>> I AGREE WITH MICHAEL ON IT.
BECAUSE I LOOK AT IT, EVEN IF THE WHOLE PROPERTY WASN'T CRITICAL.
TO ME, THE WAY IT CUTS THROUGH THE HOUSE, IT KILLS LIKE IT CAN'T DO NOTHING WITH THE FRONT YARD WITH THE SEPTIC AND SEPTIC RESERVE AREA.
>> WELL, THEN I THINK, MR. MANN, YOU SHOULD MAKE THE MOTION AND YOU SHOULD GO FOR IT.
>> WELL, I DON'T THINK WE'RE FINISHED.
>> I THINK WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH SOME MORE CRITERIA.
>> WELL, THE OTHER CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET ALL THE WAY THROUGH.
DO YOU WANT US TO READ THROUGH.
>> I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO READ THEM.
>> WELL, LET'S GO THROUGH THE REST OF THEM, AND THEN WE'LL GO FROM THERE.
>> DUE TO SPECIAL FEATURES OF THE SITE OR SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE INVOLVED, ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNWARRANTED HARDSHIP LIKE, WHAT WE JUST WENT THROUGH AND THIS IS THE SAME THING.
>> I'M GOING TO ASK THEM ONE MORE QUESTION BEFORE WE GO MUCH FURTHER.
IT LOOKS LIKE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY HAS SOME RIPRAP.
YOU GUYS HAVE ANYTHING ON YOUR SHORELINE THAT WOULD KEEP IT FROM ERODING AND LOSING GROUND TO THE WATER.
IS THERE A BAKED? IS THERE A STONE RIPRAP OR ANYTHING? IT'S JUST.
>> AT THE BASE THERE IS THE RIPRAP.
[01:10:03]
I DON'T KNOW IF PUT IT THERE.I CAN'T SEE IT ON YOURS BECAUSE IT'S COLORED IN.
>> BUT THE FEATURE THAT YOU SEE ON 22049 IS THE SAME AS OURS.
>> IT'S JUST HIDDEN BY THE OUTLET.
WE WERE JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY.
>> ONCE AGAIN, IT'S NOT REALLY RELEVANT, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS.
BACK IN THE '60S, THEY MIGHT HAVE HAD 40 MORE FOOT OF SHORELINE THERE, AND IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN AS MUCH ENCROACHING INTO THE HUNDRED FOOT BUFFER.
I DON'T KNOW. A BIG STORM COULD HAVE CUT THAT LITTLE SWALE AND WE DON'T KNOW.
WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, PART OF THAT HOUSE GOES INTO THE HUNDRED FOOT BUFFER.
>> LET'S KEEP GOING WITH THESE.
>> TO THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF PROVISIONS OF THE CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE WILL DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN SIMILAR AREAS WITHIN THE CRITICAL AREA.
>> THAT'S BEEN PROVEN, BUT BASED ON WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHO'S USING WHAT AND, YOU'VE GOT A POOL NEXT A COUPLE OF LOTS, YOU GOT A POOL RIGHT ALMOST IN LINE WITH AS YOU'RE JUST A FEW FEET AWAY FROM THE WATER AND YEAH.
PEOPLE ARE USING THEIR LOTS IN A WAY THAT THEY CAN'T.
>> I DON'T THINK THAT THEY'RE ASKING TO DO ANYTHING MORE THAN WHAT IS COMMON.
>> WHETHER IT'S THERE OR ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE WATER WITHIN THE FOOT BUFFER AREA.
>> IT'S NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THAT WOULD BE HAD BY THEM, WHICH IS THE NEXT ONE.
>> I AGREE. GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT CONFER UPON APPLICANT ANY SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THAT WOULD BE DENIED BY THIS CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE OR OTHER LANDS OR STRUCTURES WITHIN THE CRITICAL AREA.
FOR THE VARIANCE REQUEST, IT IS NOT BASED UPON CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE A RESULT OR ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT IN.
>> I KNOW THAT THEY DIDN'T DO THAT.
>> THE VARIANCE REQUEST DOES NOT ARISE FROM ANY CONDITION.
>> ANY CONFORMING? OR NON-CONDITIONING.
>> OR PERMITTED NON-CONFORMING.
>> THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE SHALL NOT A ADVERSELY AFFECT WATER QUALITY OR ADVERSELY IMPACT FISH, WILD LIFE PLAN HABITAT WITHIN THE CRITICAL AREA.
I KNOW WE ANSWERED THAT AND OTHER ONE.
>> NOT ON THAT, BUT THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO ADDRESSED THAT IN HIS.
>> THE MITIGATION PLAN AND THE FACT THAT IT WOULD NOT ADVERSELY COUNSEL.
>> THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE CRITICAL AREA LAW AND LOCAL CRITICAL AREA PROGRAM.
>> THAT'S IT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE LESS I'M MISSING.
>> NO, THAT'S IT. MAKE THE MOTION.
>> WELL, I GOT ONE MORE QUESTION FOR MATT BEFORE ANY MOTION IS MADE.
BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND THE REQUIRED MITIGATION RATIO IS THREE TO ONE.
BUT IF YOU READ THE LETTER FROM THE STATE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, IF OPTICAL IN ADDITION ONE TO ONE FOR SQUARE FOOTAGE OF CANOPY COVERED REMOVED, DOES THAT APPLY TO THIS OR IS THAT.
>> THAT'S IF YOU'RE REMOVING SOMETHING. BUT WE'RE NOT.
>> WHAT THE REGULATION IS IS THREE TO ONE FOR PERMANENT DISTURBANCE, ONE TO ONE FOR TEMPORARY DISTURBANCE.
>> THREE TO ONE IS WHAT'S EXPECTED?
>> THREE TO ONE, SO THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE ITSELF, THREE TO ONE.
ANY TEMPORARY DISTURBANCE FOR ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION.
ANYTHING THAT FALLS IN BETWEEN THE ADDITION AND THE LIMITED SERVANCE, THAT'S YOUR TEMPORARY.
THAT OBVIOUSLY GETS SEATED AND REGRADED, THAT'S REQUIRED REGARDLESS IF IT'S A CRITICAL AREA.
THAT'S WHY THEIR MITIGATION EXCEEDS THAT THREE TO ONE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOUSE, THE MITIGATION THAT THEY HAVE ON THERE INCLUDES THAT ADDITIONAL ONE TO ONE FOR TEMPORARY DISTURBANCE.
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WAS GOING TO GET MISSED. THAT'S ALL.
>> DO YOU LIKE A MOTION AT THIS POINT? CAN WE MOVE ON TO THAT? OR DO WE HAVE SOMETHING ELSE WE NEED TO ADDRESS?
>> I THINK IT'S CLEAR THAT YOU'RE READY TO GRANT IT.
WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION? IT SEEMS LIKE HE'S GOING TO AGREE WITH IT AND I'M GOING TO BE THE ONE THAT SAYS,
[01:15:02]
NO, BUT THAT STILL DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE IT'LL CARRY.IF THAT'S WHAT YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO DO.
>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE, MR. CHAIRMAN READY.
>> GO TO MAKE THE MOTION. I READ SOMETHING PLEASE.
>> I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION IN REFERENCE TO APPLICANT NUMBER 24-0020, TRAVIS EWING VARIANCE FOR 22041 GANNON DRIVE OF PRESTON TO GRANT THE APPROVAL PENDING, ALL MITIGATION IS TAKEN CARE OF AND ALL ITEMS WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT ARE TAKEN CARE OF.
>> DO YOU OFF OF EXHIBIT 2, YOU MEAN?
YEAH. AT THE BOTTOM OF EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH WAS THERE.
I HAD TO VOTE MY CONSCIENCE, BUT I'M GLAD THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO HELP YOU.
IT WASN'T MY INTENT TO NOT DO IT.
IT WAS MY INTENT TO FOLLOW. BUT I THOUGHT.
>> IT'S STILL WITHIN MY MIND WE HAVE FOLLOWED.
>> I THINK IT'S A GOOD DECISION. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO.
>> I JUST FEEL LIKE THE WHOLE THING WAS CRITICAL. IT WOULD BE.
>> BUT ANYWAY, YOU GUYS ARE FREE TO GO, YOU'LL GET ALL THE PAPERWORK, AND WE WISH YOU THE VERY BEST WITH YOUR NEW BABY AND YOUR NEW ADDITION.
>> DO WE HAVE TO DO ANYTHING ELSE, KATHY?
>> WE HAVE TWO DECISIONS. YOU SEE YOUR PACKAGE THAT WE NEED TO APPEAL.
[Review of Decisions]
I'M SITTING HERE GOING, MY BRAIN IS FRIED. IT'S LATE FOR ME.
>> THE DECISION. WRITE THERE ON THE BOARD. THANKS, PATRICK.
MAKE ME FEEL LIKE A TOTAL IDIOT. THANK YOU.
I KNOW, AND I'M LIKE, IT'S RIGHT THERE, KAREN, IT'S ON THE BOARD.
>> DO WE GO TO SAY WE GOT TO SAY THE CASE NUMBER OR NO OR WE'RE GOING. I GOT THEM.
>> THE APPEAL APPLICATION FOR NUMBER 24-0032. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> WE WANT TO ADOPT AND THE APPEAL APPLICATION FOR 2400333. ALL IN FAVOR?
[Adjournment]
>> IT'S 7:16, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO ADJOURN.
>> MIC'S ON.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.