Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant wins variance after board finds subdivision created nonconforming pole barn
Summary
Dennis Windsor received an after‑the‑fact variance to reduce the front building restriction from 60 to 40 feet for a pole barn at 6312 Mill Branch Road in Huntingtown; the board also voted to refund the extra after‑the‑fact fee and closed the record. The decision was unanimous.
Dennis Windsor was granted an after‑the‑fact variance on Feb. 6, 2025, to reduce the front building restriction on his property at 6312 Mill Branch Road from 60 feet to 40 feet for an existing pole barn.
The Calvert County Board of Appeals convened in a hybrid session and heard Windsor say the barn was built in compliance when constructed and that a recent subdivision altered setback requirements. "I built it... I thought the county wanted," Windsor told the board when asked why the structure sat where it did. Staff confirmed public notice and entered exhibits supporting the application.
The board worked through the variance criteria, including whether unwarranted hardship exists, whether granting the variance would injure the public interest, whether it would adversely affect the comprehensive plan and whether the variance was the minimum adjustment necessary. Multiple members suggested the nonconformity was created by the county subdivision process and that formalizing a variance would provide a clean record for the property moving forward. One member said doing the variance “might make it a little easier” than leaving the structure only grandfathered.
The board voted unanimously to refund Windsor the extra after‑the‑fact fee charged in this matter and then moved to close the record. After deliberation the appeals board granted the requested variance with no conditions and wished Windsor luck with the project.
The board indicated it would issue a written order within 45 days of rendering its decision. The decision was 5‑0 in favor of the variances and associated fee refund.
