Charles County Board of Appeals denies two variances for Riverside Shores lot

The Charles County Board of Appeals on April 28 denied two variances sought for Lot 9 in the Riverside Shores subdivision, rejecting requests to reduce side‑yard building restriction lines and to permit a dwelling and associated septic inside the 100‑foot critical‑area buffer.

The board voted separately on the two applications. On Docket 1483, seeking a 50% reduction in the building restriction lines (from a 35‑foot total to 17.5 feet, and from a 15‑foot minimum to 7.5 feet), the motion to grant failed; a subsequent motion to deny passed by roll call vote. On Docket 1484, the board voted to deny the critical‑area buffer variance, with voting members recording a 5‑0 vote to deny (the chair abstained).

The cases drew a sustained public comment period. Neighbors submitted written materials and spoke under oath, arguing the proposals would harm water quality, increase erosion risk, and alter neighborhood character. "This is not a mere administrative process," said Bob Lukenik, who submitted documents and raised concerns about the placement of a proposed septic easement and about notices that he said were posted on private rather than public roads. Dorothy Lukenik urged the board to "protect the water supply" and warned that approval could make more than 100 lots buildable.

Neighbor Sydney Johnson presented photographs he said showed active shoreline erosion, and Howard Dent urged the board to deny the buffer variance for three reasons: the applicant had not demonstrated smaller alternatives or a minimal disturbance plan, the requested footprint appeared larger than necessary, and the hardship may be self‑created because the property was purchased in February 2024. "You must turn down this request," Dent said during his summation.

Applicant counsel Mark Mudd framed the lot as a small, pre‑zoning parcel platted in 1947 and argued the strict application of current setback and buffer rules would deprive the property owner of reasonable use. Mudd referenced staff testimony and case law, including Belvoir Farms and a Chesapeake Bay Foundation decision, and said the proposed dwelling would be a modest footprint located as far from the river as feasible. "Without a variance, the proposed dwelling cannot be constructed on the lot," Mudd told the board.

Opposing counsel raised statutory questions about the board's authority to grant a buffer variance under the county ordinance and argued the applicant had not put evidence on the record showing the property is unique compared with neighboring lots — a factor the code requires. The exchange between counsel and the board included extended discussion of whether the planning commission, rather than the appeals board, has authority over some buffer exceptions.

Board members who voted to deny cited concerns about precedent and neighborhood impacts. One member noted that the proposed reduction in building restriction lines would leave an envelope where a new house could be placed much closer to adjacent properties; another said the application did not demonstrate that the proposed plan used the minimum disturbance necessary in the buffer.

The record contains several technical details the board referenced: the lot is described in the record as approximately 8,249 square feet, 55.91 feet wide and 150 feet long, with more than half of the parcel inside the 100‑foot critical‑area buffer. Staff testimony referenced required mitigation ratios (1:1 outside the buffer and 3:1 inside the buffer) and confirmed the county health department had approved a proposed septic area. The applicant is listed in the record as Margaret McGinnis; the property owner is listed as Marcus McGinnis.

Next steps: the board closed the record for these dockets and will issue written findings and a decision order reflecting the votes taken on Dockets 1483 and 1484. The chair noted that any party may appeal the decision to the appropriate court.

Votes at a glance

• Docket 1483 (building restriction line/setback variance): Motion to grant failed; subsequent motion to deny passed (result: variance denied). Voting summary on the final denial motion: Benjamin Watkins — approve; Jennifer Walker — approve; Damian Tresada — approve; Timothy Trainor — against; George Grendel — opposed; Bud Humbert (chair) — abstained.

• Docket 1484 (critical‑area buffer variance): Motion to deny approved by roll call (5 in favor among voting members; chair abstained). Voting summary: Benjamin Watkins — approve; Jennifer Walker — approve; Damian Tresada — approve; Timothy Trainor — approve; George Grendel — approve; Bud Humbert — abstain.

The board concluded other scheduled administrative items and set a May 12 administrative session; it adjourned the April 28 meeting by unanimous voice vote.

Sources: transcript of the Charles County Board of Appeals meeting, April 28, 2026; statements quoted verbatim are attributed to the speakers who made them in the hearing record.