Worcester County BZA denies Dixie Drive shed, approves multiple Ocean Pines setbacks and a CrossFit special exception

The Worcester County Board of Zoning Appeals on May 8, 2025 denied a request for a front-yard setback variance to place a 24-by-14 workshop shed on Dixie Drive but approved multiple other variances and a special exception during a meeting of the board.

The denial came on case 25-32 (William Orr and Annette Clark). The board voted 5-2 to deny the front-yard variance after the applicant said environmental constraints and septic/reserve areas left no alternative location on the lot. William Orr, the property owner, told the board that the lot "has 2 front yards, a septic system and septic reserve system" and that there was no other viable placement for a workshop. Board members who voted to deny cited proximity to the road, the size of the front-yard setback (35 feet for that lot because it is treated as having two front yards), and visibility/safety concerns; the denial vote was announced on the record as 5 to 2.

The board approved several other applications: - Case 25-29 (Beth and Louis LaBrunda) — The board approved a rear-yard variance 6-1 for a proposed above-ground pool and surrounding deck in Ocean Pines. The applicant told the board the lot is much smaller than the zoning minimum (reported as about 5,000 square feet) and that high groundwater made an in-ground pool impractical and expensive; the deck would be approximately 39 inches above grade. The vote on the record was 6 in favor, 1 opposed. - Case 25-27 (Cody Gadkowitz) — The board approved a reduced rear-yard variance after staff and the applicant submitted a revised site plan. The applicant said the originally advertised request was larger than the revised filing and that the Ocean Pines Architectural Review Committee had reviewed the published agenda (before the reduction) and considered the advertised amount excessive. The board approved the revised request with no recorded opposition. - Case 25-30 (Angela Gold and Joseph O'Boyle; applicant represented by attorney Hugh Cropper) — The board approved a front-yard setback variance for a 48-square-foot deck that would encroach about 4.9 feet into the front setback. Attorney Hugh Cropper described the lot as "very unique" because of existing pilings, multiple critical-area setbacks and a mapped limited-wave-action (Lemoine) line; he said the house has existed for more than 30 years and the proposed addition was reconfigured to remain within the building envelope, leaving a small 4.8-by-9.9-foot notch that the deck would fill. The board voted to approve the case with no recorded opposition. - Case 25-28 (Beach House CrossFit DBA BHCF LLC / Holly Stevenson Duvall) — The board granted an after-the-fact special exception to allow a personal service establishment (health/fitness facility) in an I-1 Light Industrial district. The applicant said the business had operated at the location for about 6½ years and that the need for the special exception only came to light recently during site-plan review of another tenant on the same property; staff noted the owners are working to clear certificates of occupancy for the complex. The motion to approve was seconded by Board Member Larry Fikes and carried.

One other request was presented but no formal action was recorded in the transcript. In case 25-(Salito Properties / Patrick Brady) the applicant asked for two special exceptions to permit agritourism uses and commercial hosting of events at 11010 Worcester Highway. Patrick Brady described the proposed agritourism activities and argued the property would conform to the county comprehensive plan; staff noted parking, site-plan and compliance reviews would still be required. The transcript does not include a motion or final vote for that case.

Across multiple cases staff and applicants referenced Worcester County zoning code sections when describing required setbacks and standards (examples in the record include citations such as "CS1-116 C4," "CS1-206 B2," and "CS1-305"). Applicants frequently told the board they were seeking relief because lots (especially in Ocean Pines) are smaller than current zoning minima and because environmental constraints — high groundwater, septic reserve areas, critical area setbacks, and mapped wave-action/marsh lines — limit buildable areas.

Votes at a glance - Case 25-32 (William Orr & Annette Clark), 11211 Tammy Terrace (Dixie Drive): motion to deny front-yard variance; second; outcome: denied, vote 5-2. - Case 25-29 (Beth & Louis LaBrunda), 41 White Sails Circle (Ocean Pines): motion to approve rear-yard variance for above-ground pool and deck as applied; second; outcome: approved, vote 6-1. - Case 25-27 (Cody Gadkowitz), 51 Quarterstaff Place (Ocean Pines): motion to approve revised/reduced rear-yard variance (reduction from advertised request); second; outcome: approved (no recorded opposition). - Case 25-30 (Angela Gold & Joseph O'Boyle; applicant represented by Hugh Cropper), 12417 Meadow Drive: motion to approve front-yard variance for a 48-square-foot deck encroaching ~4.9 feet; second; outcome: approved (no recorded opposition). - Case 25-28 (Beach House CrossFit / Holly Stevenson Duvall), 12040 Industrial Park Road: motion to approve after-the-fact special exception (personal service/fitness facility); second (Larry Fikes); outcome: approved (no further challenges recorded). - Case 11010 Worcester Highway (Patrick Brady / Salito Properties): two special-exception requests for agritourism and commercial events; discussion recorded; no final vote recorded in transcript.

What the board directed and next steps - Several approvals referenced routine follow-up with county permit staff to close outstanding certificates of occupancy and to confirm final site plans (applicants were advised to work with Development Review and Permitting staff). For the CrossFit case staff said the property owner and tenants will follow a compliance schedule to clear missing certificates of occupancy and change-in-tenant records. - Where applicants revised plans (Case 25-27) the board accepted the reduced request without requiring the applicants to re-advertise; staff confirmed the Ocean Pines ARC had reviewed the originally published agenda prior to the revision.

Why this matters Zoning board rulings on modest encroachments, accessory structures and business-use exceptions shape how waterfront, Ocean Pines and rural parcels can be used and developed. Several applicants argued that pre-existing lot configurations, septic and environmental constraints, and mapped wave-action/marsh boundaries make strict application of modern setback rules impractical on older platted lots; trustees and neighbors pressed for attention to road safety, sight lines and compliance with environmental setbacks.

The board’s written decisions and any conditions placed on approvals will appear in the formal minutes and permit records with Development Review and Permitting; applicants with outstanding permit or CO issues were directed to work with county staff to resolve those matters.