Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves variance reducing 50‑foot rear setback to 20 feet for Nagy deck
Summary
The Queen Anne's County Board of Appeals approved a variance for Timothy and Jacqueline Nagy to reduce the 50‑foot rear yard setback to 20 feet to permit construction of a 22‑by‑36‑foot rear deck on a legally nonconforming lot in Chester.
The Queen Anne's County Board of Appeals granted a variance reducing the NC‑15 rear‑yard requirement from 50 feet to 20 feet for a deck at 57/111 Lot 3 on Schuyler Avenue in Chester. Planning staff described the property as a 0.757‑acre, historically nonconforming lot in the critical area with non‑tidal wetlands. The variance was requested to permit a 22‑by‑36‑foot rear deck and steps that, at their closest point, were advertised at a 20‑foot setback.
During the hearing, the applicants, Timothy and Jacqueline Nagy, told the board they had applied for a building permit that had been denied and that the deck would provide safer egress from the house. "We sort of feel trapped now because after all, we pay our county taxes and a mortgage on a property that we feel we can't use and expand on to make it our own," one applicant said. They said a set of double doors at the rear of the house is currently blocked and that the proposed deck would provide another exit and a space for family gatherings. Planning staff said the proposal was comparable to other lots in the neighborhood and that the zoning staff had no objection to approval provided the applicant presented clear evidence of practical difficulty.
Board members reviewed the variance criteria in Chapter 18.1 and found that literal enforcement would create a practical difficulty given the lot’s shape and historic lot width. One member asked for clarity about whether the advertised setback was 20 or 22 feet; the board confirmed the application was advertised at 20 feet and the applicant's drawing shows 20 feet at the closest point. A member proposing the motion asked that the record reflect a reduced setback to 20 feet to allow construction of the deck; another member seconded. The motion passed by voice vote; the board said a written decision would be mailed to the applicants.
The board did not record individual roll‑call votes in the public record shown in the hearing; a formal decision will be issued in writing.
