[{"_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",6351790,"mediaKeyId","2226773-3faa5b2d83fe405711340c916061b273","parentId",2226773,"title","Neighbors appeal issuance of building permit for garage, hot tub and other work at McKay's Beach property; hearing continued","audioSeconds",5761,"startMs",6704000,"endMs",12465000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2226773-3faa5b2d83fe405711340c916061b273&start=6704&end=12465","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2226773-3faa5b2d83fe405711340c916061b273/thumbnail_6704000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6351790/St-Marys-County/Maryland/Neighbors-appeal-issuance-of-building-permit-for-garage-hot-tub-and-other-work-at-McKays-Beach-property-hearing-continued","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6351790-40d26e5e8a1bb0b57ec517af8495d5a3/orig.mp4?Expires=1775550352&Signature=RpoUr8uYwKpYplahYDdCK7WgVlERJg5ZmmASV0~PvRQfntzefnqQN74MvBKCROWH3cv90hcEj0zBMFz0a9deLEJ4w7Q5wJD0ta6W2gLCWw0H8Pl6uCSt3pegb-dCQUA3AvPORMVQYG0sDNFeiDhJAOUkvNuMLzqepfnYxDyCtD~HY0KckHrn3xgTvMix1NbbthOokvWMP1h-HGbyfm1vrVxNw7cq8zE619e9iy-rCDB-NFs2s4N31q6SvN4c0PchFNSep520YICKBqQcATLXYSR7Pg1FOQBFpohqd~DVhSUuEwvIZVS3D7dNCJyp-9qPXrHq9nvgsRNiEpEj3~xVLA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","St. Mary's County, MD","date","2025-02-05T19:10:56Z","article","Robert and Nancy Kuzmic asked the St. Mary's County Board of Appeals on Oct. 11, 2007, to reverse or hold in abeyance a Planning Director decision to issue a building permit for work at 18856 McKay's Beach Road (the Rice property), arguing the property contains unpermitted, after‑the‑fact construction, exceeds impervious-surface limits for its lot size, and may present health and safety risks.

The Kuzmics filed an appeal of Permit O7‑0118, which staff described in the legal notice as an application addressing multiple chapters of the county's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance: Chapter 23 (appeals), Chapter 32 (property development regulations), Chapter 41 (Chesapeake Bay critical area), Chapter 51 (use regulations and standards), and Chapter 52 (nonconforming uses and structures). Appellants told the board they are particularly concerned about: (1) multiple after‑the‑fact improvements that they say were built without permits; (2) a recent permit approving a garage addition and a hot tub/deck that the appellants contend the ordinance prohibits in the buffer or requires a variance for; and (3) unanswered questions about septic capacity, electrical and structural inspections, and impervious-surface calculations.

At the hearing the appellants presented a chronology of the property: a small dwelling at the time of a 1986 deed and survey; a porch and other enlargements in the 1990s; an after‑the‑fact permit in 1998 for a sunroom; a repaired or replaced pier; and more recent additions including a large deck with a hot tub and a play structure. The appellants said county records and tax-assessment figures indicate the building footprint and total square footage increased substantially after purchase and that some required inspections, health‑department approvals and permits are not present or not documented in the county file.

Key legal points raised by the appellants included: zoning and building permits are required before using or enlarging structures (ordinance sections cited to the board); uses and structures are lawful only when built and occupied in compliance with the building code and permit process; swimming pools and associated decks are prohibited inside the critical-area buffer (CZO §51.3.0.118.a.2, cited by appellants) and variances for those structures cannot be granted; and nonconforming structures face limits on expansion (Chapter 52) that the proposed garage addition may exceed.

Appellants said the county had a longstanding policy of not issuing new permits when open violations exist, a policy they asked the board to apply here. They asked the board either to withdraw the staff recommendation that the property be declared in compliance or to prohibit the issuance of additional permits until the property owner documented that existing improvements were permitted and inspected and that the property met health, critical-area and building-code requirements.

Planning staff acknowledged the file contained multiple permits and permit applications over the years and said that county staff had researched archives (aerial photos, microfiche and permit files). Staff concluded the property complied with applicable sections of the ordinance and recommended the board not overturn the planning director's action. However staff also told the board there were questions about the private‑road/plat issues in the earlier hearing and about potential mitigation and road upgrades in that case. In the Rice matter staff recalculated impervious surface and reported the property was within the county's limit based on staff measurements and interpretation.

Appellants challenged the staff calculations, pointing to what they described as errors of omission and arithmetic on the county worksheet, and argued that even using staff numbers the permit would exceed the lot's impervious-surface allowance after a math correction. They also raised septic and public‑health concerns, saying the property's septic system was sized for a small house and may not support the current enlarged footprint and additional bathrooms, and they flagged electrical and fire-safety questions tied to extensive unpermitted work.

The board did not decide the appeal that evening. By unanimous voice vote the panel agreed to continue the matter to a date-certain (Dec. 13, 2007 at 6:30 p.m.) to allow both sides to supplement the record and for the board to review the exhibits and permit files. The Kuzmics asked the board to prohibit any further construction or occupancy until the county determines whether existing work was permitted and compliant; they offered an alternative motion asking the board to require evidence of compliance (permits, inspections, health‑department signoffs or mitigation) before allowing new work or occupancy. Staff and the property owners will be afforded time before the next hearing to review submitted exhibits and relevant records.

Why it matters: The case raises core enforcement questions — whether permits should be withheld when alleged open violations exist, how the county counts impervious surface and applies critical-area rules, and whether after‑the‑fact permits and prior variances create lawful bases for later expansion. Appellants urged the board to use the hearing to enforce building‑code, septic and critical‑area safeguards; staff urged adherence to its record-based determinations while offering to continue review of documents the appellants submitted.

The board scheduled a date‑certain continuation to allow the parties and staff to assemble a complete administrative record and return for deliberation and a decision.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","10/11/2007 St. Mary's County Zoning Board of Appeals","oneSentenceSummary","Robert and Nancy Kuzmic asked the St. Mary's County Board of Appeals on Oct. 11, 2007, to reverse or hold in abeyance a Planning Director decision to issue a building permit for work at 18856 McKay's Beach Road, arguing unpermitted after‑the‑fact work, excess impervious surface and potential septic and safety issues exist on the property.","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},6351794,"Board of Appeals upholds planning director on W.A. Fraser Farmstead Lot 3 subdivision",5625,123000,5748000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2226773-3faa5b2d83fe405711340c916061b273&start=123&end=5748","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2226773-3faa5b2d83fe405711340c916061b273/thumbnail_123000.jpg","/articles/6351794/St-Marys-County/Maryland/Board-of-Appeals-upholds-planning-director-on-WA-Fraser-Farmstead-Lot-3-subdivision","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6351794-b417ff92b98759fa113bb55879bde0b4/orig.mp4?Expires=1775550352&Signature=SsQvhN4Le2LotbChvl7jYeN1wvdOs7hNP7xXEtVGf2AGvyl2PjRVCrC60~oJcZVTAAiJaT1gZzHyehmYHvSnNOUgG00wFtl4wZU3XDLItYdCbHYbYOkp5BJDVCP3dU8VxVmpmJAdMgHv-nIM5z4WLhldLRpKIo2MswD3iGo7S3EdhtmWOIQo0LOLiYOp~5KAKOWd9HQ0lb51KvSM7JHqbaGn0QwOMu8im1Bg6L0HKU1Cfcu4tZC4iEuOGe53CCWvVQsgV6FAs7bih1TlmQ38PBO02P37vaZ3ujvUXfvDzIqNkWrFAkCyerHMOC0KxMOOh-cz6UpNq~2fvLrOx3wP2w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","St. Mary's County Board of Appeals members voted 3–2 on Oct. 11, 2007, to uphold the Planning Director's approval of a minor subdivision that would divide Lot 3 of the W.A. Fraser Farmstead into additional five-acre lots.

The appeal, filed by Alexandra Way resident Mike Lammon, argued that a note recorded on the original subdivision plat (General Note 13) prohibited further subdivision of the farmstead lots until the private road serving the subdivision was upgraded and made public. Lammon told the board he and other neighbors had bought into what they understood to be an eight-lot, low-density development and that the plat note should be enforced as a recorded restriction.

The board heard testimony from several adjoining property owners, including Richard Surback and Cutler Fenwick, who described the private road as narrow with blind curves and said additional lots would increase traffic and safety risks. Property owner George Nussberger and his wife, Joan Nussberger, told the panel they had followed county staff guidance and had sought the subdivision approval after confirming with Planning and Zoning that the county's rules had changed since the original plat was recorded.

In its staff report Planning and Zoning explained that the original Fraser Farmstead plat was recorded in 1992 under prior subdivision regulations and that the county's current ordinance — adopted May 13, 2002 — changed how private roads and \"farmstead\" lots are counted. Land use staff told the board that under the current rules a private road may serve up to five lots under 15 acres and any number of farmstead lots (15 acres or larger). The department concluded the proposed subdivision of Lot 3 complied with current zoning and subdivision regulations and that the department could not deny the subdivision application solely based on the recorded plat note.

Lammon emphasized state and county legal provisions he said supported treating plat notes as having the force of law. He cited Maryland Code (Article 66B) language that restrictions on a plat \"shall have the same force of law,\" and a St. Mary's County Subdivision Ordinance provision that recorded plats are not annulled by county ordinance, arguing the plat note should therefore govern.

Planning staff and a former planning employee present at the hearing said the note was placed on the plat to reflect the prior regulations (which limited private roads to no more than eight lots/dwellings) and to flag that the private road at the time was at its historical maximum. Staff told the board the note did not impose a perpetual bar on subdivision; instead it tied further subdivision to road upgrades. Staff also noted the applicants' subdivision application predates the county's Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program and therefore is not subject to that new requirement.

After discussion the board member who made the motion to uphold the Planning Director's decision was Mr. Madensky; the motion was seconded by Mr. Callaway and carried by a 3–2 vote. The board instructed staff to prepare a written order reflecting the decision, to be signed within 60 days; a 30‑day appeal period to the Circuit Court follows the signing of that order.

Why it matters: The decision affirms the county's interpretation that a recorded plat note telling when further subdivision may occur does not automatically block subdivision under later-adopted zoning rules. Neighbors raised safety and neighborhood character concerns; staff emphasized continuity with how county regulations changed between the 1992 plat and the 2002 ordinance.

The board's order and any subsequent appeal will determine whether Lot 3 may be recorded and developed under the planning director's approval or whether additional conditions (including road upgrades or mitigation) will be required.

Details: The subject parcel is Lot 3 of the W.A. Fraser Farmstead (Tax Map 15, Block 19, Parcel 4), in the Rural Preservation District, Sixth Election District, about 800 feet north of the Friendship School Road intersection with Maryland 235. The farmstead is recorded as 15.839 acres. The original plat note (General Note 13) was recorded Dec. 28, 1992 (Plat Liber 37, Folio 52). The current county subdivision ordinance was adopted May 13, 2002.

The board's written order will be mailed to the parties once signed; parties have 30 days from the order date to seek review in the Circuit Court of St. Mary's County.","St. Mary's County Board of Appeals voted 3–2 on Oct. 11, 2007, to uphold the planning director's approval of a minor subdivision that would split Lot 3 of the W.A. Fraser Farmstead into additional five-acre lots, rejecting an appeal that argued a recorded plat note barred further subdivision until a private road was upgraded.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Neighbors appeal issuance of building permit for garage, hot tub and other work at McKay's Beach property; hearing continued

Board of Appeals upholds planning director on W.A. Fraser Farmstead Lot 3 subdivision