Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Right Of Way Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues Wilkinson variance after county right‑of‑way questions; hearing rescheduled for Jan. 10, 2008
Summary
The Board of Appeals continued a variance application for John and Susan Wilkinson (VAAP-06-2519) after staff said a county deeded right-of-way across the parcel was not shown on the site plan. The board set a new hearing date of Jan. 10, 2008 to allow a revised, signed plat showing the right-of-way and house location.
The Board of Appeals on Nov. 29, 2007 continued a variance application from John and Susan Wilkinson after county staff and engineering raised a disputed county-owned right-of-way that did not appear on the applicant’s submitted site plan.
The Wilkinson property at 14654 Bayfront Drive (Scotland Beach) is a small lot within the County’s RPD (Resource Preservation District) and limited development overlay. Staff told the Board that the county had recently acknowledged a variable-width public right-of-way across Lot 19 based on a State Highway Administration deed conveyed to the county; Department of Public Works supplied a redlined plan showing the right-of-way’s approximate location. Because the applicant’s site plan did not depict the right-of-way, staff said it could not determine whether the proposed replacement house and deck would be located in county-owned right-of-way and therefore recommended postponement until the plan was revised.
Applicant John Wilkinson described a long history of ownership in his family, hurricane damage and a complex chain of title and plat history dating to a 1944 State Roads Commission document. He said the house has been in his family since 1969 and that the Maryland Department of Health had required rebuilding the dwelling in the same footprint for septic and health reasons. Wilkinson said he had multiple prior site plans and surveys (including a 1987 property-line survey by Macron) and is pursuing legal review of the right-of-way claim.
Board members agreed the right-of-way issue created a cloud over the application. Counsel and staff advised that, because staff could not confirm the right-of-way location on the submitted site plan, the Board should continue the matter so the applicant can submit a single, engineer-signed plat showing the house, all easements and the county right-of-way (if present). The Board continued the hearing to Jan. 10, 2008 and instructed staff to ensure the revised exhibit shows the existing conditions and the claimed county right-of-way so the Board can make a substantive decision.
No final decision was made on variances; the continuation preserves the applicant’s opportunity to provide clarified, signed documentation. The Board noted that if a county-owned right-of-way is confirmed, the applicant may require a separate administrative procedure or additional variance for any encroachment.
