Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nonconforming Use Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing on Mattingly Auto Racing & Repair nonconforming-use appeal continued; special meeting set for May 19
Summary
The board continued the rehearing on Mattingly Auto Racing & Repair’s nonconforming-use/area appeal to May 19 (special meeting) after finding representation and notice issues needed resolution; the continuation follows a court remand ordering sworn testimony.
The St. Mary's County Board of Zoning Appeals continued the rehearing on a nonconforming-use area appeal involving Mattingly Auto Racing & Repair and set a special meeting date of May 19 to take sworn evidence.
The proceeding concerns whether certain lots in St. Clements Wood Subdivision host a legally existing nonconforming use for auto racing and repair, and whether other lots are being used as a salvage yard. The matter was remanded by the courts requiring sworn testimony consistent with the Circuit Court’s opinion. Department staff previously concluded that lots 11–15 and 155–159 have a legally existing nonconforming repair use but that lots 6–10 and 160–164 do not.
John B. Norris III appeared as representative for the property owner. Counsel and staff discussed the scope of the appeal, the court remand, and which factual issues the board may decide. Attorney Brian Dugan served as counsel to the board for the hearing because County Attorney George Sparling identified a conflict. Dugan explained that only certain issues had been addressed by the court and that sworn testimony must be taken at the rehearing; he advised the members that the board must base its decision solely on evidence produced at the rehearing.
Board members also discussed whether the property owner needed to be present; the board noted the applicant bears the burden of proof and absence of the owner may affect the evidence available. Because of uncertainties about representation and scheduling, the board agreed to continue the hearing and hold the case as the only item on the May 19 special meeting agenda so the hearing could be completed if possible. The board instructed staff to re-advertise and to notify adjoining property owners again as required.
The board formally moved and seconded a continuation to May 19; the motion passed by voice vote. Counsel confirmed that a representative for the owner (an LLC representative) may appear in the owner’s stead per the Board of Appeals’ rules; the board directed staff to advertise the special meeting date and to provide notice to adjoining owners.
