[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-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],{"_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",6351793,"mediaKeyId","2226763-dc3e584d970a2f876d50302ad996daea","parentId",2226763,"title","Board continues appeal over Rice property permit and buffer mapping to Jan. 10; will decide without new testimony","audioSeconds",2971,"startMs",1425000,"endMs",4396000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2226763-dc3e584d970a2f876d50302ad996daea&start=1425&end=4396","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2226763-dc3e584d970a2f876d50302ad996daea/thumbnail_1425000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6351793/St-Marys-County/Maryland/Board-continues-appeal-over-Rice-property-permit-and-buffer-mapping-to-Jan-10-will-decide-without-new-testimony","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6351793-8a752c2df02842645ca782d441733b30/orig.mp4?Expires=1776241342&Signature=ZFIDGOmjgAXHjFxaZnE64NIDXMHVX7frzZ2Iktcr~MYfRmTpKTbAjMkw17RwskOTPuV21UKijpDpCC-Gfaw7jgVhgMn79Gw9krGTWOU57DAsz9J2OY8rT2u8QTgqvaa6B4wtmkehmVkbd5hIA5wHN-6c2UNL1VSxdHWSd2Jd5VifwI1vK86la4pP9qLzWwZMvELFC9aLzJlDY93cqM1SAf7shU-EkvGEM8Jw4HtQ1lVIlvfF4EaZMQ-RHTN574ZsXhWvtH5hbXMjnM~SCtDtAsVH0NwQBSSn9kd8WGga9GPTWpC5qiwnZhkvzSVpPnZBlyCAtAw72qeFnH6nXXA6CQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","St. Mary's County, MD","date","2025-02-05T19:14:14Z","article","The St. Mary's County Board of Appeals on Dec. 13 continued until Jan. 10, 2008, a contested appeal brought by neighbors challenging the planning director's administrative decision to issue a building permit and to declare the Rice property in compliance with county zoning and critical-area regulations.

The dispute centers on a permit issued for further work on a detached garage (including a proposed second story) and on whether prior work on the Rice parcel complied with the comprehensive zoning ordinance and critical-area rules. Michelle Shalei and other planning staff presented the county's position that the property currently complies with applicable regulations provided a portion of the garage wall that encroaches on the side-yard setback is moved to meet the 5-foot minimum for a detached accessory structure.

Appellant Mr. Kuzmic argued the county erred in multiple respects: he contended the property should not be treated as qualifying for the county's buffer-management overlay and that prior permits and additional impervious surface in the 100-foot buffer raise compliance issues. Kuzmic also asserted the health department has no record of permits for some interior work (bedrooms/bathrooms) alleged to have been completed, and raised concerns about an unpermitted revetment and a pipe that once discharged groundwater toward Herring Creek.

Staff said mapping of the buffer-management overlay (DMO) was adopted and approved by the Maryland Critical Area Commission (date cited in the record as Sept. 26, 2006); staff explained the overlay was applied where lots were highly developed, typically under 200 feet in depth from mean high water, and where the overlay allows constrained, regulated redevelopment subject to mitigation standards. Staff noted the Rice parcel had been the subject of historical deeds and a 1986 adverse-possession settlement that altered the lot configuration, and staff declined to relitigate the official mapping decision in this appeal.

During public testimony the Rices provided paper records and photos of permit placards and inspection slips for prior work; planning staff said county microfiche and permit files from the late 1980s and early 1990s are sometimes incomplete but that the department's records showed inspections and signoffs consistent with the permits they found. The health department told staff it had no record of a permit for added bathrooms/bedrooms; the county's planning representative said inspections were generally coordinated with health-department signoffs for residential permits but acknowledged some historical file gaps.

After extensive legal and factual discussion — including competing readings of the zoning ordinance's definitions for \"nonconforming structure,\" the legal effect of variances granted in prior years, and the buffer-management overlay mapping criteria — the board voted to continue the matter to a public meeting on Jan. 10, 2008, and said it would make a decision that night without reopening testimony. The board asked staff to prepare any formal findings and members indicated areas they wished to review before issuing a final ruling.

The continuance preserves the record as submitted at the Dec. 13 hearing; no new witness testimony will be taken on Jan. 10, the board said. The January session will be the board's opportunity to issue written findings on whether the planning director erred as a matter of law in issuing the building permit or in concluding the property was in compliance.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","12/13/2007 St. Mary's County Zoning Board of Appeals","oneSentenceSummary","The Board of Appeals continued to Jan. 10 an appeal by neighbors challenging the planning director's issuance of a building permit and the county's compliance determination for a waterfront Rice property, citing disputes over buffer mapping, prior permits and health-department records.","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},6351798,"Board approves variances to allow detached garage and limited buffer disturbance at Miller Court property",1357,62000,1419000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2226763-dc3e584d970a2f876d50302ad996daea&start=62&end=1419","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2226763-dc3e584d970a2f876d50302ad996daea/thumbnail_62000.jpg","/articles/6351798/St-Marys-County/Maryland/Board-approves-variances-to-allow-detached-garage-and-limited-buffer-disturbance-at-Miller-Court-property","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6351798-55d2edf0c88d68fa6d8ccad3ecd27740/orig.mp4?Expires=1776241342&Signature=YeeRUDfHoLUb-vmlSsYPBE5ZLNMAnts0796gOsgRjrdRDk5fTmqmCpioEiW03vHlxm35uQJpG4leF-Gx9NlrAgoLmyyAoSL8o-lSSZBX-A9S2kpVKUcEouyR1IVYocS7F-aR5HiYS586MoJnI-OxuVHC17O8Nb74Vo8dBNlOq0cVejAeu6b5xuxGG4xPR~jSX6OIWTPyiOtVAkywU8BvvHFeV4okM~bhiAGbId-9aC7SFnMV1rPP4sBT2gEyf~NA2cJQ4Va6sju5QxuNK3aiJY1mUKOPAHNKDn-k0X7FRGFlx8elKxhTGQKTXdWqNoSqeniULXu9mm02PzgjS3fejQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The St. Mary's County Board of Appeals on Dec. 13, 2007, voted unanimously to approve two variances that let property owners Peter and Amy Ulrich add limited impervious surface in an expanded critical-area buffer and reduce the required front-yard setback for a detached garage at 2150 Miller Court in Leonardtown.

The Ulrichs sought relief from Section 71.8 0.3 of the county comprehensive zoning ordinance to allow work within the expanded critical-area buffer and from Schedule 32.1 to reduce the 25-foot front-yard setback for a detached garage. Michelle A., a Department of Land Use and Growth Management planner, presented staff findings and told the board staff supported both variance requests, subject to a critical-area planting agreement and other standard conditions.

The Ulrichs told the board their 0.88-acre lot (38,486 square feet) contains an existing dwelling and a failing septic system and that topography and an on-site stream leave only a limited location for a new drain field and the proposed work. Peter Ulrich said the family intends modest additions to the house and a detached garage placed at the front boundary to minimize driveway length and impervious-surface area. He told the board, “We’re aware of the potential environmental impact…so we did give a great deal of thought to minimizing the surface area coverage.”

Planning staff reported the lot is zoned Rural Preservation District with a Limited Development Area overlay and that, with the proposed work, the parcel would remain under the county’s 15 percent impervious-surface limit (staff calculated the property would be at approximately 12 percent). Staff noted the applicants are proposing to clear about 18 percent of existing vegetation and would be required to mitigate at a 3:1 planting ratio for any variance-granted disturbance in the buffer. The Department of Public Works and Transportation provided written confirmation that it has no present intent to extend Miller Court across the recorded right-of-way bordering the site; staff cited that email in recommending the setback relief.

The Critical Area Commission had signaled opposition in its review of the variance; staff told the board that the commission’s position represented a change from recent practice on some grandfathered properties but that staff still found the variance criteria for ‘‘unwarranted hardship’’ met because the lot’s topography and the position of existing structures constrain reasonable alternatives. The board moved to approve both variances, with the decision to be memorialized in an order prepared by staff, signed within 60 days, and mailed to the applicants. The board’s order will include the usual appeal timeline and the condition that the Ulrichs comply with the county’s critical-area planting agreement.

The board’s action authorizes the Ulrichs to place the garage where shown on their approved plan and to perform the limited buffer disturbance allowed under the conditions attached to the approval. Staff will prepare the signed order and mail it to the Ulrichs; any party wishing to appeal will have the statutory period following the order’s signing to do so.","St. Mary's County Board of Appeals granted two variances allowing Peter and Amy Ulrich to add impervious surface within an expanded critical-area buffer and to locate a detached garage at or very near the front building restriction line at 2150 Miller Court in Leonardtown.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board continues appeal over Rice property permit and buffer mapping to Jan. 10; will decide without new testimony

Board approves variances to allow detached garage and limited buffer disturbance at Miller Court property