Charles County Board of Appeals Meeting - April 28, 2026

The Charles County Board of Appeals held a public hearing on April 28, 2026, to consider two variance applications for a property at 1408 Riverside Drive (Lot 9, Riverside Shores): Docket 1483 for a building restriction line reduction and Docket 1484 for a critical area buffer variance. The meeting also included approval of previous minutes, consent items, and findings for other dockets.

Consent Calendar

• The agenda for the evening was approved unanimously.
• Meeting minutes from April 14, 2026, were approved via roll call.
• Findings and decisions for Docket 1479 (Barrie Road Mini Storage Facility) and Docket 1478 (Wawa) were approved unanimously.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Bob Lukinick: Submitted documents arguing that the septic easement line was incorrectly drawn and that the proposed variance does not meet standards. He expressed concern that approval would transform the area and disrupt residents' lives, noting approximately 104 vacant lots in the subdivision.
• Dorothy Lukinick: Expressed support for existing zoning to maintain adequate water and sewer. She reported unauthorized clearing, tree removal, grading, stop work order violations, and RV placement by lot owners in anticipation of variance approval.
• Sidney Johnson (speaking on Docket 1484): Submitted photographs (accepted over objection) showing erosion of the critical area hillside and proximity of the proposed house to a neighboring residence. He argued the critical area is retreating and that planting would not stabilize it.
• Howard Dent (Newburgh resident): Presented four objections cited from the Critical Area Commission variance guidance: (1) no design alternatives were submitted; (2) the house and deck are not the minimum necessary (a 26x8 ft deck entirely in the buffer); (3) the circumstances of the structure are self-imposed; (4) approval would create a precedent for other lots, potentially devastating the subdivision. He urged denial.
• Vincent Watson (next-door neighbor): Argued that the variances are premature and out of order because the critical area buffer variance should be considered first. He stated that the setback variance would place part of the house in the critical area, changing the use from non-buildable to buildable. He also noted the proposed house and septic would be very close to his property, causing hardships.

Discussion Items

• Applicant's Summation (Attorney Mark Mudd): Argued that the property (8,249 sq ft, 55.91 ft wide, created in 1947) is exceptionally narrow and shallow, and the strict application of BRL and buffer regulations would deprive the owner of the right to build. He cited case law (Bellboard Farms and Chesapeake Bay Foundation v. DCW) to argue that the hardship is not self-created and that denial would constitute a denial of reasonable and significant use. He noted staff recommended approval and that the house design is the minimum necessary.
• Council Brown (Board Counsel): Raised legal issues: (1) The definition of standing used by the applicant was incorrect; all speaker property owners had standing. (2) The property was not shown to be exceptionally narrow relative to other lots in the neighborhood, which is required for a variance. (3) The critical area buffer variance may not be within the board's authority under §297-131, as it prohibits land uses in the buffer except for specific exceptions, and granting a variance could amount to a use variance. He urged the board to consider these issues.
• Chair Humbert: Intervened to stop debate between counsels, stating the board would vote and let the courts decide any legal challenges. He abstained from voting as he was not present at the prior hearing.
• Board Discussion on Docket 1483 (BRL Variance):
  • Member Trainer: Moved to grant, arguing the lot is unusually small and narrow compared to typical Charles County lots.
  • Member Grindel: Supported granting, noting the variance is only for side setbacks and is no different from other houses in the area; it's impossible to build without it.
  • Member Trasada: Opposed, arguing the lot is not unique in the neighborhood and the variance is too large (50% reduction). He noted the neighbor's concern about closeness and that the property was purchased in 2024 after regulations were in place.
  • Member Walker: Opposed, expressing concern about the character of the neighborhood and lack of uniqueness.
  • Motion to grant failed 2-3. Motion to deny then passed 3-2.
• Board Discussion on Docket 1484 (Critical Area Variance):
  • Member Grindel: Moved to deny.
  • Member Trainer: Supported denial, noting the house could be configured differently and the buffer zone runs into neighboring houses, raising questions about why the applicant's house must be entirely in the buffer.
  • Motion to deny passed unanimously (5-0, Humbert abstaining).

Key Outcomes

• Docket 1483 (Building Restriction Line Variance): Denied. The motion to grant failed (2 votes in favor: Watkins, Trainer; 3 opposed: Walker, Trasada, Grindel; 1 abstention: Humbert). The motion to deny passed (3 votes in favor of denial: Watkins, Walker, Trasada; 2 opposed: Trainer, Grindel; 1 abstention: Humbert).
• Docket 1484 (Critical Area Buffer Variance): Denied unanimously (5-0, Humbert abstaining). The motion to deny passed with all present members voting in favor.
• Other Business: The board approved findings and decisions for Docket 1479 (Berry Road Mini Storage) and Docket 1478 (Wawa) unanimously.
• Future Meeting: An administrative session was scheduled for May 12, 2026, to discuss board matters. It will be advertised and open to the public.
• Adjournment: The meeting adjourned.