ST. MARYS COUNTY BOARD OF APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING OF September 24, - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

ST. MARY’S COUNTY BOARD OF APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING OF September 24, 2020 EXHIBIT 3: (2) Staff Presentation VAAP 19-2160 Lumpkins Property

VAAP 19-2160 Lumpkins Property In accordance with the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance: Variance from Section 71.5.2.b, to disturb the expanded 100’ Non-Tidal Wetland Buffer. 2

PROPERTY INFORMATION • Owner : Benjamin & Dawn Lumpkins • Agent : Little Silence Rest, Inc • Location : 17896 Piney Point Road, Piney Point • Tax Map : 65 Grid: 4 Parcel: 263 Lot: 500-5 • Subdivision: Sheehan • Zoning : Residential, Low Density (RL) District • Overlay : Intensely Developed Area (IDA) Overlay • Lot size : 17,446 sf • Improvements : none 3

Proposed Conditions Single-family dwelling with sidewalk and steps, a deck and a driveway. Agency Review and Approvals Metcom and Department of Land of Use and Growth Management’s Critical Area and SWM have approved the site plan. St. Mary’s Soil Conservation District review is pending. 4

Location Map 17896 Piney Point Road, Piney Point 5

Zoning Map Residential, Low Density 6

Soils & Wetland Map 7

Site Plan 8

Site Plan 9

Site Plan Detail Wetlands Prop Hse Wetland Buffer 10

Standards for Granting Variances Except as provided in Sections 24.3, 24.4 and 24.5, the Board of Appeals shall not vary the regulations of this Ordinance unless it makes findings based upon evidence presented to it that: 1. Because of particular physical surroundings such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, size, shape, or topographical conditions of the property involved, strict enforcement of this Ordinance will result in practical difficulty; and The conditions creating the difficulty are not applicable, 2. generally, to other properties within the same zoning classification; and 11

3. The purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon reasons of convenience, profit, or caprice. It is understood that any development necessarily increases property value, and that alone shall not constitute an exclusive finding; and 4. The alleged difficulty has not been created by the property owner or the owner’s predecessors in title; and 5. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood and the character of the district will not be changed by the variance; and 12

6. The proposed variance will not substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood; and 7. The variance complies, as nearly as possible, with the spirit, intent, and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan. 13