Calvert County Board of Appeals Meeting - June 4, 2026
Calvert County Board of Appeals Meeting - June 4, 2026
The Calvert County Board of Appeals held a public administrative hearing on June 4, 2026, in a hybrid format, beginning at 9:00 a.m. The board considered four cases: an after-the-fact variance for a shed, a Critical Area variance for a deck, and two special exceptions for daycares. The meeting also included an administrative session discussing updates to rules of procedure and the procurement of independent legal counsel for the board. All decisions were made unanimously.
Consent Calendar
- The board approved the agenda as presented without changes.
Public Comments & Testimony
- No members of the public offered comments during the public comment portion of the meeting.
Discussion Items
Case BOA2025-0026 – Jeff Tewell, on behalf of Edward Thomas Jr. & Louise Tait, for an after-the-fact variance to reduce the front setback from 60 feet to 14 feet for expansion of a legally non-conforming shed at 6190 Sheridan Point Road, Prince Frederick.
- The shed’s block portion was constructed in the 1940s, predating the creation of the parcel in 1964. The applicant proposed adding a lean-to on the back side, away from the road. The board found that the long-term existence of the shed created an unwarranted hardship and that the variance would not injure the public interest, would not adversely affect the comprehensive plan, was the minimum adjustment necessary, and was not due to actions by the applicant. The variance was granted unanimously (4-0).
Case BOA2026-0001 – Michelle & Jeremy Clancy (Applied & Approved Permits), on behalf of Mary McGowan, for a Critical Area variance to disturb the buffer to construct a 683.75 sq. ft. irregular shaped deck with stairs and landing at 183 Leason Cove Drive, Lusby.
- The existing deck was in disrepair and unsafe. The applicant argued that the entire property falls within the 100-foot buffer and that replacing the deck “in kind” was not possible due to health department setback requirements from a well and septic system. The board heard testimony from the homeowner’s grandson (CJ McKenzie) and the contractor (George Hope). Staff noted that the Maryland Critical Area Commission had raised objections, but the board found that the applicant’s need for safe egress and the inability to replace the deck in kind justified the variance. The board voted unanimously to grant the Critical Area variance.
Case BOA2026-0005 – Kristin Phillips, application for a Special Exception to operate a daycare for up to 19 children at 6850 Briscoe Turn Road, Owings.
- The applicant is currently licensed for 12 children and has a waiting list. She plans to use two classrooms in the basement; the remainder of the home will remain unoccupied. Staff confirmed that the proposal meets parking and fire marshal requirements. The board found that the daycare would not adversely affect the comprehensive plan, adjacent properties, or public services. The special exception was granted unanimously with conditions: the daycare is limited to 19 children, for this applicant at this location, and the remainder of the home must remain unoccupied.
Case BOA2026-0010 – Winifred Kelly Faris, application for a Special Exception to operate a daycare for up to 19 children at 995 Grace Road, Huntingtown.
- The property had previously operated as a daycare for 30 years. The applicant purchased the property and is working to bring it into compliance, including installing a new septic system and expanding the parking area. The board noted that the property is not in a historic district and that the use would not harm neighbors or public services. The special exception was granted unanimously with conditions: clean up the yard, expand and stripe the driveway, obtain a license from the Maryland Department of Education for up to 19 children, keep the remainder of the home unoccupied, and limit the approval to this applicant at this location.
Administrative Session
- Tamara Blake Wallace, Board Administrator, reported that the board’s rules of procedure have been updated to separate bylaws from rules, and that the language regarding attorney choice remains unchanged (the board will select its own counsel). A request for proposals (RFP) for independent legal representation is being prepared. The board also discussed meeting protocols with the county executive, including quarterly meetings to be held with rotating board members (not more than two at a time to avoid a quorum).
Key Outcomes
- Case BOA2025-0026: Variance granted (4-0).
- Case BOA2026-0001: Critical Area variance granted (4-0).
- Case BOA2026-0005: Special Exception granted (4-0) with conditions.
- Case BOA2026-0010: Special Exception granted (4-0) with conditions.
- The board approved the agenda as presented.
- No executive session was needed. The meeting adjourned after all business.
Meeting Transcript
The June 4th 2026 Calvert County Board of Appeals Public Administrative Hearing. We will begin the hearing by taking roll. Mr. Clark. Mr. Briscoe. Mr. Scott. Here. And I am here. So we have established a quorum. Our counsel is Miss Lee Lisa Smith Sanders. The board's administrator is Tamara Blake Wallace. The board's acting coordinator is Kelsey Holland. And assisting staff is Lisa Krebs. We are in a hybrid format this morning with both in-person and virtual attendees via Teams. At this time, staff will go over Teams etiquette for the hearing. Welcome to today's Board of Appeals Public Hearing. I will be your team's host. This meeting is being recorded on video and audio for record keeping purposes. Those who testify in today's hearing or previously submitted written correspondence shall be considered a party of interest. Please keep yourself muted until you are called on to speak. Use the raise hand function, and I will call on you when it is your turn. Say your name each time you speak for the benefit of those who cannot see you. Only use the chat feature for technical issues and not to comment about cases. Comments and chat cannot be included as part of the official record. Does anyone have any questions about using Teams or Teams etiquette? There's only employees in. So back to you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Today's hearing will be conducted in the following manner. I will call the case to be heard. I will then call on the applicants to identify themselves by stating their name and address. If the speaker is acting as a representative, I will ask them to identify the applicants they represent. Staff will address the public notice requirement and mark the exhibits. Then swear in the applicants and interested parties wishing to give testimony. Next, the applicants will present their case. We ask that the applicants or representative please take the time to clearly address the approval criteria. The board must use this to render their decision for each case. Persons wishing to cross-examine witnesses will be provided the opportunity to do so. This will be for questions only, not testimony. Any person wishing to testify on a case will be given an opportunity to speak. Persons testifying will need to identify themselves by name and address, whether participating in person or virtually. Individuals may be limited to two minutes, and a group spokesperson may have up to five minutes to speak. Time limits are at the discretion of the board chair. All testimony must be sworn. The applicants will have a final opportunity to respond to any public testimony and present closing arguments or statements. The board will make findings of fact based on exhibits submitted and accepted prior to or during the hearing and testimony heard today. The board will render a decision within 45 days after the case is closed, and an order will be issued no later than 45 days after that decision is rendered.
openpublica.com