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

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.