Calvert County Board of Appeals Public Hearing - April 9, 2026

The Calvert County Board of Appeals held a public administrative hearing on Thursday, April 9, 2026, beginning at 9:00 a.m. in the Chesapeake Hearing Room, 150 Main Street, Prince Frederick, MD. The meeting was conducted in a hybrid format via in-person and Microsoft Teams. All five board members were present (Chairman Carpenter, Ireland, Briscoe, Clark, Scott), establishing a quorum. Counsel Lisa Smith Sanders and staff were also present. The board heard three cases, conducted an administrative session on proposed text amendments and rules of procedure, and accepted public comment.

Case 1: Special Exception for Flex Space (Case 26-4240)

• Applicant: Matt Senenman with Atwell, LLC, on behalf of property owner Michael Gardiner and Penwick Village, LLC.
• Request: Special exception for flex space use of Buildings A and B at 10380 Town Center Boulevard, Dunkirk (zoned Dunkirk Town Center District).
• Summary: The applicant stated the two buildings (each under 20,000 sq ft) would be leased to a mix of retail, office, and service tenants similar to existing buildings in the Dunkirk Gateway development. The property is served by an existing private water/sewer system operating at about half capacity (12,000–13,000 gallons per day out of 25,000 gpd capacity for sewer; water plant at about 30,000 gpd capacity, also half utilized). Traffic generation falls within the overall trip cap for the development. The board had no further questions after the applicant addressed the criteria.
• Outcome: The board closed the record and approved the special exception (motion by Ireland, second by Scott, all in favor).

Case 2: Variance for Side Setback (BOA2026-0002)

• Applicant: Betty Pimm of KP Homescapes on behalf of owners Windel Leon III & Erin Patterson.
• Request: Variance to reduce the side setback from 30 feet to 8 feet to construct a 12' x 20' A-frame screened porch at 7875 Hampton Way, Owings (zoned Rural Community District).
• Summary: The applicant explained that the house was built in the wrong location 25 years ago, making it legally non-conforming. The proposed porch would replace a sliding glass door that currently leads to an unsafe drop-off. The homeowner discovered the non-conformance only when applying for the building permit. Four letters of support from neighbors were entered into the record. The board queried the applicant about the foundation, drainage, and the existing non-conforming status; counsel confirmed the variance could be granted for the new structure.
• Outcome: The board closed the record and approved the variance (motion by Clark, second by Ireland, all in favor).

Case 3: Critical Area Variance for Buffer Setback (BOA2026-0003)

• Applicant: Jeff Tewell of COA Barrett, LLC on behalf of owners Jan & Robert Turner.
• Request: Critical area variance for disturbance to the buffer and a general variance to reduce the buffer setback from 10 feet to 0 feet for construction of deck steps and a stoop in the buffer at 12990 Spring Cove Drive, Lusby (zoned RD/CA/LDA).
• Summary: The house is a replacement in kind built on the same footprint as the 1977 original, with about 98% of the dwelling within the 100-foot buffer. The steps and stoop were not previously existing. No increase in impervious surface beyond the legally non-conforming lot coverage of 6,077 sq ft was proposed. The planning department required mitigation via fees in lieu of planting. The applicant argued that denying access would constitute an unwarranted hardship.
• Outcome: The board closed the record and approved both the general variance and the critical area variance (motion by Clark, second by Scott, all in favor).

Administrative Session

Proposed Text Amendments

• The board discussed several proposed text amendments, focusing on Text Amendment 26-20, which directly affects the Board of Appeals. The amendment would limit the board’s authority to issue orders requiring administrative discretion not otherwise available to the zoning officer. Board members expressed concern that this amendment undermines their quasi-judicial role and was a direct response to a January 2026 decision they had made on a tolling issue.
• Director of Planning and Zoning, Mr. Brinkley, attended and offered to pause the amendment pending the outcome of the related appeal before the Circuit Court. The board voted unanimously (4-0) to request that Text Amendment 26-20 be deferred until that court case is resolved. The board also requested a written explanation of all text amendments affecting its operations.

Rules of Procedure

• Staff presented the process for amending the board’s bylaws and rules of procedure (currently combined). Board members disagreed with the interpretation that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) must approve any changes, arguing that the code only requires prior approval to begin the update process, not final approval of the board’s own rules. They noted that the BOCC had recently changed a provision to require the county attorney to represent the board, rather than allowing the board to appoint its own counsel.
• The board decided to formally request a meeting with the BOCC to discuss these issues. A motion by Ireland, seconded by Clark, passed unanimously.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Joe Cormir (9201 Sam Owings Place, Owings, MD) spoke as a concerned citizen. He expressed frustration that zoning changes to accommodate data centers were made without proper public notice, alleging “backroom deals” and non-disclosure agreements. He urged the board to thoroughly research data center projects and to work with the community.

Key Outcomes

• Case 26-4240: Special exception approved (unanimous).
• BOA2026-0002: Variance approved (unanimous).
• BOA2026-0003: General and critical area variances approved (unanimous).
• Text Amendment 26-20: Board voted to request deferral pending court case (unanimous).
• Rules of Procedure: Board voted to request a meeting with BOCC to discuss rule-making process and counsel appointment (unanimous).
• Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:30 a.m. No executive session was held. The next Board of Appeals meeting is scheduled for June 4, 2026 (no meeting in May).