Charles County Board of Appeals Meeting — December 9, 2025

This was the final Board of Appeals meeting of 2025, held Tuesday, December 9th. The board addressed routine approvals (consent calendar) and then conducted a lengthy hearing on Docket 1459, an administrative appeal concerning whether the legal non-conforming use of the River's Edge restaurant had been abandoned after a 2018 fire. The board heard presentations from county staff, the applicant, and four members of the public, then continued the case to January 13, 2026.

Consent Calendar

• Agenda Approval: The board voted unanimously to adopt the agenda as amended (Docket 1474, Duke 925 LLC, was added).
• Minutes Approval: The minutes from the October 28, 2025 Percante mining case were approved by unanimous voice vote.
• Decision and Order (DNO) Approval: The DNO for Docket 1469 (Bowling Farm) was approved. The clerk polled the board; all five members (Watkins, Trasada, Trainer, Grendel, Humbert) voted in favor.

Public Comments & Testimony

Four individuals signed up to speak.

• Michael Olup (Vice President, Benedict Heritage Preservation Society, a nonprofit LLC): Stated the society’s strong support for rebuilding River’s Edge. He cited a survey of members showing that over 75% ranked a new waterfront restaurant as the single most desired element of future development in Benedict. He described the site as the historic and geographic center of the community and emphasized that the blighted structure depresses property values and poses environmental and safety hazards. He argued that supporting the rebuild and calling for immediate debris removal are not contradictory.
• Gail Welch (resident for 40 years, adjacent property owner): Expressed the position that the burned structure should be torn down and cleaned up. She stated that the debris affects property values and the environment, and she suggested that the county could put the property to better use, such as a public fishing pier, which would benefit the community and create business opportunities.
• Melissa Tyner (ancestor of the original Shorter family that founded the restaurant): Expressed support for working with Mr. Holmes to demolish the debris and rebuild the restaurant as quickly as possible. She referenced a survey where the majority of town residents voted for a waterfront restaurant and noted the loss of a local gathering place.
• Mary Beth McDermott (resident since August 2018): Expressed concern about the severe neglect and deterioration of the site. She described specific hazards (insulation, broken glass, debris falling into the Patuxent River) and urged the county to enforce property maintenance standards, remove hazardous debris, and restore the site to a safe condition. She did not explicitly oppose or support the rebuild but noted she would not be speaking if cleanup or reopening efforts had been made.

Discussion Items

Main Case: Docket 1459 — River’s Edge (Administrative Appeal of Zoning Officer’s Determination of Abandonment)

The appeal was brought by Zachary Gilreath (attorney for Baker Donaldson) on behalf of George Holmes, owner of the property. The zoning officer (Deborah Carpenter, by letter February 8, 2023) determined that the non‑conforming restaurant use had ceased for more than one year and was therefore abandoned under Charles County Zoning Ordinance §297‑468. The applicant argued that the county erred and that the use should still be considered existing legal non‑conforming.

Staff Presentation:

• Kelly Palmer (Planning Supervisor) and Mark Potter (Associate County Attorney) presented a timeline:
  • Fire occurred on or about April 19, 2018.
  • First site development plan submittal: February 18, 2020.
  • Multiple review letters and responses exchanged; a key letter from Palmer on November 3, 2021 stated that the one‑year clock for replacement would begin on that date.
  • The applicant requested a 90‑day extension on October 18, 2022; the request was denied by letter November 30, 2022.
  • The applicant then requested a zoning officer determination, leading to the appeal.
• Staff argued that under §297‑468(A) and Maryland case law (citing Catonsville Nursing Home and Loveman), intent is irrelevant; the plain language requires abandonment if the use ceases for one year. They asserted that the board’s task was only to determine if the applicant met the burden of showing the use had not been abandoned for more than one year.
• Staff acknowledged that the property’s non‑conforming status arose because it cannot meet current setbacks and critical area regulations; if the non‑conforming status is lost, reconstruction would face additional hurdles.
• Palmer testified that the county worked with the applicant for several years, but there were gaps in communication, and the final deadline was set as a “last chance.”
• Potter noted that to retain non‑conforming status, the use must resume (e.g., obtain a use‑and‑occupancy permit) within 12 months; efforts alone are insufficient under the ordinance.

Applicant’s Case:

• George Holmes testified:
  • He purchased the property in June 2021 (the restaurant had been in his family for decades; prior owner was a trust with Holmes as co‑trustee).
  • He opened River’s Edge in 2010; the property previously housed Shorter’s Place since the 1940s–50s.
  • After the fire, he immediately contacted the county floodplain manager and was told he could rebuild, but would need to comply with the 50% substantial improvement rule and obtain an appraisal.
  • He hired architect Ron Lytton in August 2018. Disagreements arose with the county over the appraisal (whether to include pilings and decking as part of the foundation) and over the level of itemization required for cost estimates.
  • The appraisal by Hooper & Associates valued the building at $900,000; the county used a lower number, leading to multiple design revisions (building size reduced from 4,600 sq. ft. to 2,700 sq. ft. to stay within 50%).
  • He stated that he never intended to abandon the use and continued to pursue approvals; the county’s own April 2019 guidance (provided to the architect) stated that intent should be considered and that involuntary cessation due to fire would not extinguish the right to recommence.
  • He argued that the one‑year deadline was impossible to meet given the complexity of the project, the county’s evolving requirements, and the last‑minute variance requirement from the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) noted in October 2022.
• Ron Lytton (architect) testified:
  • He detailed the submittals and comment letters. The project was initially submitted as a minor site plan, but the county required a major site plan, adding significant work.
  • The MDE variance requirement (for the pump station) was first communicated on October 13, 2022, less than a month before the November 3, 2022 deadline. He requested a 90‑day extension on October 18, 2022.
  • The county denied the extension on November 30, 2022, and closed the online submission portal, preventing further submittals.
  • He believed all requirements could have been met within the 90‑day extension had it been granted.
• Attorney Gilreath’s Legal Arguments:
  • He argued that the county’s own 2019 interpretation (tab five) supported reading intent into the abandonment provision.
  • He contended that a strict one‑year clock (or even the extended clock) resulted in a legal impossibility, effectively a taking of Mr. Holmes’s vested property right.
  • He cited two Maryland cases: National Waste Managers, Inc. v. Anne Arundel County (135 Md. App. 585, 2000) and Sizemore v. Town of Chesapeake Beach (225 Md. App. 631, 2015), which discuss abandonment timelines and vesting, to support that intent must be considered when a literal reading creates a legal impossibility.

Board’s Questions and Clarifications:

• Board members pressed staff on why the county worked with the applicant for several years if the ordinance required abandonment after one year. Staff acknowledged this was a matter of practice, not legal authority.
• Counsel for the board (Mark Brown) emphasized that the ordinance has no intent clause, that non‑conforming uses are disfavored, and that COVID‑19 was irrelevant because the one‑year period expired before the pandemic began.
• The board asked about the date the C‑V zone was adopted (not provided in the record) and noted a lack of documentation confirming the fire date and the original legal use.

Key Outcomes

• Continuance: The board voted unanimously to continue Docket 1459 to January 13, 2026 to allow time to review the additional documents (including the April 2019 letter and the cited case law) and to conduct cross‑examination of the applicant’s witnesses. The record remains open.
• Upcoming Board Matters: The January 13, 2026 meeting will include the election of chairman and vice chairman (annual organizational item) and also a case concerning Pembroke Square (Sheets) on the same docket.
• Notes for the Applicant: The board requested that any additional legal materials be submitted timely, and that the Benedict Heritage Preservation Society provide a letter on its letterhead authorizing Michael Olup to speak on behalf of the LLC.