St. Mary's County Board of Appeals denies variance for Chaptico pier

The St. Mary's County Board of Appeals on April 8 denied a request by property owners Leslie Wilson and Sharon Hill Wilson to reduce the county's 25-foot lateral line setback to 6 feet for a pier at 35784 Bay Drive in Chaptico.

The board's decision followed staff testimony that the applicants had moved and partly reconstructed an existing pier without first obtaining the county permit required for new pilings or for moving a nonconforming structure. Yvonne Chaleis, zoning administrator, told the board that "the applicants claim that they essentially flipped the pier" and that county approval is still required even after an after-the-fact Maryland Department of the Environment authorization.

The matter concerned Lot 4 of the Millpoint Shores subdivision, a waterfront parcel the county records show as about 10,140 square feet. Staff said shoreline measurements from GIS data indicate the lot is approximately 63 feet wide at the waterline, and the rebuilt structure measures about 60 feet long by 6 feet wide with a 10-by-17-foot L platform that now sits roughly 6 feet from the extended property line shared with Lot 3 — an encroachment of about 19 feet into the required 25-foot lateral line setback.

The applicants told the board they believed they were repairing an historic pier on family property and did not realize a permit was required when they reorganized pilings and decking after storm damage. Sharon Hill Wilson said that the pier "was my parents' property" and explained the decision to move parts of the structure to reuse existing pilings and reduce conflict with an adjacent owner. She told the board, "At the time, we had no idea that that we needed a permit to do that." The contractor on the job was identified as Otha Veeny.

An adjoining property owner, Elizabeth Johnson, objected and urged denial. Johnson said she believed the moved structure devalued her property and that she had paid taxes on a shared pier in prior years. She testified, "I object to the variance wholeheartedly," and submitted photographs and a survey she said showed the pier abutting her property.

County staff explained legal and procedural limits to the board. Chaleis told the board that replacing pilings and physically moving a nonconforming pier requires county permitting even if the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers later grant after-the-fact authorization for work in state waters. Staff advised the board the county setback requirement is a local rule intended to preserve navigable space between neighboring piers.

During deliberations board members emphasized that to grant a zoning variance they must find a practical difficulty resulting from the property's physical characteristics or other conditions not caused by the owner. The board's legal advisor and zoning staff reminded members that a finding must be supported by explicit facts for each variance standard.

Ronald Payne moved to deny the variance request, citing the absence of evidence of a practical difficulty independent of the applicants' actions and the lack of an agreement or affidavit from the adjacent property owner permitting closer construction. The motion, seconded by Randy Guy, carried by voice vote with one recorded opposition; the board instructed staff to prepare a written order for signature within 60 days. The order will be subject to a 30-day appeal period after signing.

The board and staff noted that owners may still apply in the future, and that rebuilding entirely in compliance with the current 25-foot lateral line setback or obtaining a signed agreement from the adjacent owner would be alternatives to seeking the same variance.