Board of Appeals approves Drift Inn cell tower but requires owner consent or variance for setback

The St. Mary’s County Board of Appeals voted unanimously July 24 to approve a conditional use permit (CUAP25-0035) for the proposed Drift Inn Communications Tower, a commercial wireless facility proposed by Telecom Capital Group, with a condition that the applicant either obtain a notarized statement of consent from the adjacent owner for structures within the tower’s fall/setback zone or obtain a setback variance.

The decision follows a continuance from June 26 and a lengthy public hearing that included staff testimony, legal briefing on setback language in the county zoning code and public comments from neighbors. The tower was described in the record as a 190-foot commercial communications tower sited on property leased from the landowner (identified in the record as Mr. Adams) and accessed from Newmarket Turner Road. Planning staff and the county attorney advised the board that, as written, the comprehensive zoning ordinance’s site-association language means structures on the same parcel as the tower are not counted as “other structures” triggering the 100% of height setback; neighbors said portions of adjacent parcels lie within the tower’s fall zone and urged caution.

Why it matters: the dispute centered on how to apply CZO setback language that requires a tower to be set back from “any residence, historic site building, or other structure not associated with the tower site” by a distance equal to 100% of the tower’s height. That interpretation determines whether nearby structures on adjoining parcels fall inside the required setback and whether the applicant needed a variance. Board members said they were reluctant to pivot mid-hearing to decide an unadvertised variance question and instead attached a condition that places the burden on the applicant to secure the required owner agreement or pursue a variance.

Staff and legal testimony John Sterling Hauser, deputy county attorney, told the board that CZO section 51.30.91(b) requires a setback equal to 100% of tower height from residences or other structures not associated with the tower site, and that the phrase “associated with the site” was best read to mean structures that are on property under common ownership with the tower parcel. Hauser said: "I think that if Mr. Adams ... wants to keep his structures within that setback, it's fine. I don't think that triggers the need for the setback or need for a variance." He also warned the board that federal case law and FCC timing guidance can limit local review time for wireless applications (the record references the so‑called FCC “shot clock” and a presumptive reasonable time of roughly 150 days).

Stacy Clements, Planner 4, Development Services Supervisor, testified that staff reviewed the site plan multiple times, did not note a required variance during those reviews and stands by the staff determination that a variance was not required "at this moment." She said staff completed approximately three reviews of the submission and that notices were mailed for the conditional use hearing and the community meeting.

Applicant and technical witnesses Ryan Showalter, counsel for Telecom Capital Group, and the applicant (managing member Mr. Fisher) were present; RF engineer Narendra Mangra participated by phone. Mangra explained the alternatives analysis in the RF report and clarified that an earlier 2024 site shown in gray on the alternatives map was not the current proposed site. The applicant asked to reserve the right to respond to public comments.

Public comments and concerns Adjacent property owners and commenters raised safety and access concerns, the accuracy of notice and whether the existing dirt driveway or a platted but uncleared 50-foot right of way could be used for tower access and long-term maintenance. Amanda Wood, who said she owns the parcel immediately in front of the proposed access, testified she and her husband were not given notice of a community meeting and said negotiations over an easement were done "in bad faith." She also said the dirt drive now used in the area is narrow and wooded and "not sufficient" for utility or construction vehicles.

Neighbors submitted four written communications to the record: two opposed (identified as the Menna and Gagnon submissions), one in favor (a Mr. Lord), and one anonymous supportive email with no identifying information. Board members discussed that the adjacent owner, Ms. Nancy Dodge, owns a large historic property (Cremona) under conservation easement; staff noted the FCC/NEPA and SHPO reviews in the project packet and said those reviews found no historic-property impacts.

Board action and conditions After deliberation about notice, procedure and the meaning of the CZO language, a board member moved to approve the conditional use with a single condition that the applicant either secure a notarized statement of agreement from the affected property owner for structures within the fall/setback zone (or obtain an easement) or obtain a setback variance from the required CZO subsection. The motion was seconded and the board voted unanimously in favor (5–0). Board members recorded aye votes; the board instructed staff to prepare a formal order reflecting the decision.

Next steps and appeal rights Staff will prepare a written order for the board to sign within 60 days; once the order is signed, a 30‑day appeal period to circuit court runs from the signature date. The board record includes (1) the conditional use approval with the stated condition, (2) the NEPA/SHPO screening documents required for wireless facilities, and (3) the RF report and alternatives analysis. The applicant may either secure the owner’s notarized consent/easement or return for a variance; several board members cautioned that pursuing a variance without adequate notice could prompt procedural concerns in future matters. Hauser also flagged the risk that an extended delay could implicate FCC timing guidance for action on wireless requests.

Votes at a glance - CUAP25-0035, Drift Inn Communications Tower (conditional use): APPROVED 5–0. Condition: applicant must obtain a notarized owner consent/easement for structures inside the fall/setback zone or obtain a setback variance from CZO subsection described in the record. (Motion made and seconded on the record.) - Additional ministerial orders signed at the meeting (approved by voice vote, 5–0): VAAP24-0345 (cottage apartments buffer variance), VAAP25-0400 (Beidleman property critical-area lot coverage), VAAP25-0306 (Parsons critical-area buffer disturbance). These were routine variance/order approvals recorded later in the same session.

Who spoke (selected): Chairman George Allen Hayden Sr.; Board members Donald LaRocco, Rita Weaver, John Brown and Ronald Payne; Deputy County Attorney John Sterling Hauser; Board attorney Steve Scott; Planner Stacy Clements; Counsel Ryan Showalter (for Telecom Capital Group); Applicant managing member (Mr.) Fisher; RF engineer Narendra Mangra (GlobeNet LLC); public commenter Amanda Wood and identified adjacent property owners (Menna, Gagnon, Nancy Dodge).