Deep Creek zoning board denies variance for new McHenry house at 964 Rock Lodge Road

The Deep Creek Watershed Board of Zoning Appeals denied a request to allow construction of a new single-family home within 1 foot 3 inches of the property line at 964 Rock Lodge Road in McHenry.

Chairman Bruce Swift introduced variance application VR845 and said the board had received both letters in favor and in opposition. Barbara Grunbaum, a next-door neighbor at 952 Rock Lodge Road, submitted a letter in support that said the plans “show minimal impact on my property” and that the proposed design staggered the house relative to hers. Elizabeth Klein, who lists an address at 1050 Rock Lodge Road, submitted a letter opposed that described a history of tree removal and said she was “opposed to granting him even more space to do so.”

Applicant Hugh Humble testified under oath about site constraints, citing large boulders, an oak tree on or near the property line, an irregular lot shape, and a buried drainage feature he described as a 6‑inch drain tile that surfaced during rain. Humble said his preferred layout was intended to limit the home’s height and preserve an appropriate appearance for the lakeshore; he also described driveway and parking challenges and said the driveway location and boulder placement constrained where a garage and five parking spaces could be sited.

Board members pressed Humble on alternatives within the ordinance. One member said the house could be shifted and noted that the ordinance allows a structure to be placed within 10 feet of the front setback without a variance; another member said they were “having trouble seeing the hardship.” After discussion, Chairman Swift moved to deny the variance; the motion was seconded and the board voted in favor. The board closed public testimony prior to deliberations.

Action: Motion to deny variance VR845 (request to allow construction within 1 foot 3 inches of the property line) was made and seconded; the board approved the motion and the variance request was denied. The motion was made from the dais and no formal roll-call of named individual votes was recorded in the transcript.

The board did not grant the variance. The transcript shows the board relied on the ordinance’s presumption that variances are awarded sparingly and that the applicant had alternatives to conform to the code. No appeal was recorded at the meeting; the board earlier noted that its decisions may be appealed to the Circuit Court of Garrett County within 30 days.

The board’s next regular meeting is scheduled for the third Thursday in September; one variance case was noted on that docket.