Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board grants setback variances after dispute over which road defines frontage

Calvert County Board of Appeals · February 6, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board approved after‑the‑fact variances allowing a 12‑foot front setback for an existing shed and approval for a proposed garage at 5185 Consent Drive, after hearing that a recorded shared driveway—not Consent Drive—was being measured as the property’s street frontage; the vote was unanimous.

The Calvert County Board of Appeals unanimously granted variances on Feb. 6, 2025, that will allow an existing 12×20 shed and a proposed 28×40 detached garage to remain where the applicants had planned on Consent Drive.

Timothy Moore of Southern Remodeling told the board the lot’s unusual pie‑shape and a shared drive designation meant county records identified a different driveway as the legal frontage, placing the shed and proposed garage inside the 60‑foot front setback. "It's pretty strange that a paved driveway would be the street frontage for their property," Moore said as he described why the recorded frontage differed from the practical driveway used by the owners.

Chris Fenimore of Planning and Zoning clarified that Consent Drive is a public county road and that the recorded front building restriction for Lot 16 derives from a recorded 50‑foot right‑of‑way tied to a common driveway notation on the plat. The applicant and staff explained that the lot’s topography, a rear conservation/forest retention area and the location of existing features left the front portion of the property as the only feasible area for the garage without additional critical‑area relief.

After addressing the zoning criteria—unwarranted hardship, public interest, comprehensive‑plan conformance and minimum adjustment—the board found that the combination of topography, lot configuration and conservation constraints justified variances for both the shed and the proposed garage. The record was closed and the motion to grant the variances carried unanimously.