[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6357489,"mediaKeyId","2214626-92a41b561d6a0c31223b979536275aeb","parentId",2214626,"title","ZBA continues Copsey sign appeal to allow further review of permit error and potential variance options","audioSeconds",3109,"startMs",2380200,"endMs",5489400,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2214626-92a41b561d6a0c31223b979536275aeb&start=2380&end=5489","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2214626-92a41b561d6a0c31223b979536275aeb/thumbnail_2380200.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6357489/St-Marys-County/Maryland/ZBA-continues-Copsey-sign-appeal-to-allow-further-review-of-permit-error-and-potential-variance-options","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357489-9872d667d1fee7d8e474594a43760cf5/orig.mp4?Expires=1776241724&Signature=TQo9mq9YiEJ9HrpLHDWGprfbi94nZ7sNIltqKWofA5iquUD3pDP4JwAm1y4maXadEppxmBtuK1UysxBbwjwfsiv0bpajuni7UCkn1lXimLhrN-4MRUhbLSaJybM9Gu611-5gpl4aewXWgQCXqHDonmLu325nIYHWihiSXCYfoPAgOiXUEaRIZ7EmqvcVQURQcJhJqB1DuWhzlA94yuewugVvFq-OkvpfYCaiPlOAHkzSW~lJAj4hjL9TXLEYrOaCRDE~qcBAfjqzCIbTGFUYFWI6N04s-9PCA7iMbt5A0ItFNvPWR69YEmciUzfLNBRRLtKgukFv~7qBPP6IJHCktw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","St. Mary's County, MD","date","2025-02-03T19:10:46Z","article","The St. Mary’s County Zoning Board of Appeals on March 24 continued the appeal filed by Leonard E. Copsey Sr. and Josephine A. Copsey of a county Land Use & Growth Management decision that a 2008 permit for a 64-square-foot freestanding sign (the Drift Inn) had been issued in error and that the installed sign did not comply with the county’s sign regulations for the rural-commercial-limited (RCL) zone.

Zoning staff told the board that the October 27, 2008 sign permit was issued in error because the department did not verify whether an existing nonconforming sign was present within the prior 12 months and therefore whether the 2008 installation was a replacement of an existing nonconforming sign (which can be refaced, but not reconstructed), or a new structure subject to current dimensional rules. Staff noted that a conforming off-site directional sign would be limited to 12 square feet and that a freestanding on-premise sign in the RCL, under today’s zoning rules, would be limited to 32 square feet.

The department’s August 30, 2010 and November 8, 2010 letters to the applicant informed the Copseys that records and aerial photos did not show an existing sign at the location at the time the new permit was issued and that staff concluded the permit had been issued in error. The staff report explained that when a nonconforming sign is moved or the structure replaced, the replacement must comply with current ordinance standards; staff characterized the installed sign as an off-site advertising sign (not a directional sign) and noted it also included advertising for a branded product that would be separately disallowed for off-premise advertising.

The Copseys’ representatives and family members told the board they relied on county staff guidance when applying for the permit and that the property had hosted a permit-authorized sign in the 1970s; the Copseys submitted photographs and a copy of a 1976 State Highway Administration permit and argued the 2008 permit should stand. The applicant said the new sign replaced an old sign and that he had followed the department’s direction when applying.

Board action and next steps: the chair moved to continue the appeal to the next hearing date, April 14, to allow county counsel (George Sparling) to research whether the department’s error creates legal estoppel or other relevant defenses and to give the applicant time to explore a variance route if desired. The board noted a variance process could require separate advertisement and months of processing; staff said a variance request would likely require multiple variance findings (to allow off-site advertising in RCL, to permit a non-directional off-site advertising sign, and to exceed the allowed square footage for directional signs).

Public testimony: a neighbor (Walter Birch) testified he did not see a sign in recent aerial photos, observed that portions of the sign included third-party advertising and mechanical animation (which county staff said is prohibited), and said the Drift Inn had more outdoor advertising than comparable waterfront restaurants. The applicant estimated out-of-pocket replacement costs at about $1,000 and said the sign helps patrons find a business set back from the road. The board voted to continue the appeal to April 14 and left the sign in place pending that hearing; staff will follow up with legal research and with instructions to the applicant if the Copseys decide to pursue variances.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","3/24/2011 St. Mary's County Zoning Board of Appeals","oneSentenceSummary","The Zoning Board of Appeals continued an appeal by Leonard E. and Josephine A. Copsey of a department determination that a 2008 permit for a 64-square-foot roadside sign had been issued in error; the board set a continuation date to allow staff legal research and to give the applicant time to consider pursuing variances.","taxTitle","St. Mary's County, Maryland","taxId",51086,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6357493,"ZBA approves subdivision variance to split two existing houses in rural-preservation district",972,1281340,2254320,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2214626-92a41b561d6a0c31223b979536275aeb&start=1281&end=2254","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2214626-92a41b561d6a0c31223b979536275aeb/thumbnail_1281340.jpg","/articles/6357493/St-Marys-County/Maryland/ZBA-approves-subdivision-variance-to-split-two-existing-houses-in-rural-preservation-district","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357493-b4b861fe25104153222ccaf8b2b0ea7c/orig.mp4?Expires=1776241724&Signature=C8QLSNEEL-1gKwCB0MZC7GTvPwWSuuiSF6T3713uzzKQ1warBcyexzV7UFn5BTsd4ovJpmYX8Y6EgJl2H90oDKkNybtK3oRuRwBFdWG4H-UkOOpHaXo6CCnQAKfGwkfsJZWkwnkn-lgaz2OvvK3OaiI-p8zo2iHpbJ0gKmlGrmM9rAjCLfZo5D5yhAfzIHvSV4yLotf4sojLWfWGcaPbzdc4HhQB7mIfMYHgLDp5Mvv5WzMy5W-N6OtTFqguHufj7r2nXLg~wnmhk93pLBcCtFk4vUCoWrT~PCw3Xps3vwK6fg70ol3JGMF2h0zgpH~AP4KJDCqvy0pyfAXwTON9qQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The St. Mary’s County Zoning Board of Appeals on March 24 approved a variance to section 32.1 of the county’s comprehensive zoning ordinance allowing subdivision around two existing single-family dwellings on a 2.1-acre property in the rural preservation district, enabling each dwelling to be put on its own lot.

The applicants were identified in the record as Leonard and Margaret (record shows variants of last name: Wathen/Walton) with applicant Deanna (\"Dee\") Young; the agent was William (Bill) Higgs, professional land surveyor with LSR Incorporated, who summarized the variance standards for the board. The property is located at 42165 and 42155 Medleys Neck Road in Leonardtown in the Third Election District; staff said the property previously complied with density rules when the older home was built and recommended approval because practical difficulty resulted from a later change in density rules (from 1 unit per acre to 1 unit per 5 acres in the rural preservation district).

Board discussion and amendment: board members reviewed staff’s recommendation and the draft written findings. One board member asked that the last sentence of paragraph 4 of Section 5 be deleted from the findings; the applicant’s agent said the neighbors’ access/right-of-way issue had been resolved. The board accepted the amendment and then moved to adopt the findings and the order.

Why it matters: the decision enables financing and replacement of an older dwelling because the lender required separate lots for the existing principal structures; staff said approval would not permit any additional dwelling units beyond the two existing houses and that all agency approvals otherwise required for recording the subdivision were in place.

Conditions and clarifications: staff and the agent noted a recorded well-sharing agreement covers joint use of an existing shared well; the health department may later require separate wells if replacement is needed. The board directed staff to prepare a signed order; the chair reminded the parties that a 30-day appeal period follows the order’s signature.

Next steps: staff will prepare the order for signature and mail it to the parties; the board’s staff estimate was to prepare the signed order within 60 days.","The St. Mary’s County Zoning Board approved a variance to allow subdivision around two existing dwellings on a 2.1-acre rural-preservation property so each house can be on its own lot; the board added a limited amendment to the proposed written findings before adoption.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6357498,"Board adopts findings on remanded Rice garage-permit appeal",502,720580,1222990,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2214626-92a41b561d6a0c31223b979536275aeb&start=720&end=1222","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2214626-92a41b561d6a0c31223b979536275aeb/thumbnail_720580.jpg","/articles/6357498/St-Marys-County/Maryland/Board-adopts-findings-on-remanded-Rice-garage-permit-appeal","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357498-2872e48edb13a95e6f2b230122ba8bb9/orig.mp4?Expires=1776241724&Signature=PrwBOt8G4fNK~h7QN7f2CTKpiBEG0lVFazkFiMksC1WeYmDun-Pp5o~1-wml~z1Dj-9UkC6fb3qnMsxPDi1z8AVlDVsMujBaB7DXldVAQdar73Ptu~8nTdE8qWWDf-rTdo2ZDFkbcNr~xxuYaidTKvXCGLTF-VcFU1o5T~R2btHzkwaMbxHwNzHyKk55IldsfD84G8Wu935fgs6BabXb45VHiQc6iqOB-6u-FCYlx4az3~Q3Bd9NZnpTTXljtnrzpwW1EVuJ9onTW~9vGUou50d6HO6gGa9gDJlJiJt6~hlt4SvFz8FpAO4AciWkasWyaen-gxYjY71-Rn27l46Kvg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The St. Mary’s County Zoning Board of Appeals on March 24 adopted written findings of fact required by a court remand in the appeal of a planning director decision to issue a building permit to expand a garage on property owned by Christian B. and Michelle G. Rice.

The board did not reopen the hearing or take new evidence; county counsel and staff explained that the Court of Special Appeals directed the board to adopt an order with adequate findings to support the board’s existing decision. County attorney George Sparling told the board it was not being asked to reweigh evidence or reverse its earlier decision; rather, the court required more-detailed written findings consistent with the board’s prior decision.

Why it matters: the order implements the appellate court’s instruction and restarts the clock for any further appeals or motions for reconsideration; the board’s adoption makes the reversal of the planning director’s permit decision effective subject to the administrative appeal periods.

The motion to accept the written findings and order was made and seconded; three members who participated in the original decision voted to accept the written order. The chair noted the order will be signed by staff and that a 30-day period follows signature during which an aggrieved party may appeal to the circuit court.

Next steps: staff will prepare the signed order and mail copies to the parties. The board’s action does not by itself reopen the matter; any party who wishes to challenge the decision further must use the judicial or administrative remedies available.","On court remand, the St. Mary’s County Zoning Board of Appeals adopted written findings supporting its earlier decision to reverse a planning director’s issuance of a garage-expansion building permit in ZAAP No. 7-0118 (Rice).",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6357503,"Zoning board approves mixed variances, denies several requests in critical-area case",568,28920,597000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2214626-92a41b561d6a0c31223b979536275aeb&start=28&end=597","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2214626-92a41b561d6a0c31223b979536275aeb/thumbnail_28920.jpg","/articles/6357503/St-Marys-County/Maryland/Zoning-board-approves-mixed-variances-denies-several-requests-in-critical-area-case","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357503-446a9fa345c0486372dadf7c130b5b1e/orig.mp4?Expires=1776241724&Signature=Ch46A694C7X5qQPyD3a8yOly0uPPIAWA8~O9AUppXelilJVtpGVLwaCmHBHKGn3HmwB2EWBW5QgMKAlzpVIhz0a3y5Cp7jfJCaBw5qp~TmGzXWVqWBau358CtHVIQvd-8CeXiEsNR-rPnh5I4Qj3xo6~7xW2fb~wnhMd8EgtGvai1hbN~h85FbKtR2Ap4FnmJvJOo9IzSruGDiMZ9vNW~Bx5iqJooXFaocFgm8FX37dpqkz9wrXsK4VsgvgTTyEmTMBxVcy9X8~pB88dnXCrqlDs4Esig~-V60FLY2f23pKbK2o48~zMKnWSSn9TMTZjjrgy8lUNKiI8M-M6ML~MXg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The St. Mary’s County Zoning Board of Appeals on March 24 adopted a written order in the long-running variance matter involving Joseph M. Lynch and Messalyn Lopez Estrada, granting several variance requests tied to reconstruction and stormwater work while denying others related to accessory structures and an outdoor bathing facility.

The board’s order, read into the record and adopted after review of a draft findings-of-fact document, said variances to reconstruct the existing single-family dwelling, to construct an attached deck in the buffer, to replace the existing septic system with a nitrogen-reduction tank, to install a second septic tank and a third drain field in the buffer were granted subject to conditions. The order also granted a variance to construct an attached portico in the buffer and to install a stormwater-management pond and associated structures, contingent on a revised site plan and approval of the stormwater installation by the St. Mary’s County Department of Public Works and the St. Mary’s Soil Conservation District.

Why it matters: the property had previously been the subject of after-the-fact permit and buffer-disturbance scrutiny; the board’s written order both imposes mitigation conditions and denies several requested structures, shaping what may be built on a shoreline property regulated by the county’s critical-area provisions.

Key elements of the order include a requirement that the applicant comply with a critical-area planning agreement and an approved buffer management plan, and operational conditions such as the installation of a trap door in a shed to allow periodic cleanout of a sediment basin and drilling three half-inch holes in pavers to provide drainage to an underlying sand bed. The order also denied variances for construction of a detached garage, a detached deck and an outdoor bath facility (shower/toilet) in the buffer. Separately, the board required the removal of a privacy fence, shower head and plumbing tied to an existing shower when it found the variance requested for that particular shower structure had not met the ordinance standards.

The board formally adopted the draft findings and the order after a motion to accept the draft as binding and a subsequent motion to accept and record the votes on the order. The chair called for adoption and said, “All in favor of the motion say, ‘Aye,’” after which the board voiced its assent and staff said an order reflecting the board’s decision would be prepared and signed by the board.

Next steps: the order will be signed by the board and a 30-day appeal period follows from the date the order is signed, during which an aggrieved party may appeal to the circuit court. Staff said it will mail a copy of the signed order when available.

Context: board members and staff discussed that mitigation and planting requirements tied to after-the-fact violations remain applicable and that an approved buffer management plan and critical-area planning agreement must be in place before some work can proceed.","St. Mary’s County Zoning Board of Appeals adopted written findings and an order granting some variances and denying others for a property subject to critical-area buffer rules in a post-permit-violation proceeding involving Joseph M. Lynch and Messalyn Lopez Estrada.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

ZBA continues Copsey sign appeal to allow further review of permit error and potential variance options

ZBA approves subdivision variance to split two existing houses in rural-preservation district

Board adopts findings on remanded Rice garage-permit appeal

Zoning board approves mixed variances, denies several requests in critical-area case