Charles County Board of Appeals Meeting: River's Edge Reconsideration - August 25, 2026

The Charles County Board of Appeals met virtually on August 25, 2026, to consider a motion for reconsideration of the board's prior decision in the River's Edge case, which had reversed a zoning officer determination that a nonconforming use was abandoned due to cessation for over one year. After hearing arguments from the county attorney and the applicant's attorney, along with legal advice from board counsel, the board voted 4-1 to deny the motion for reconsideration, upholding its original decision.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of Agenda: Motion by Timothy Trainer, seconded by Jennifer Walker, to accept the agenda as presented. Approved unanimously via voice vote.
• Approval of Meeting Minutes: Motion by a board member, seconded by Jennifer Walker, to approve the minutes of the August 11, 2026 meeting. Approved unanimously via voice vote.

Discussion Items

• River's Edge Reconsideration Request (Docket 1459):
  • The board considered a request by the County Attorney's Office to reconsider the board's July 14, 2026 decision that reversed the zoning officer's determination that the nonconforming use at River's Edge had been abandoned due to cessation for over one year.
  • County Attorney Mr. Potter argued that the board made a mistake of law by finding the use abandoned but then effectively extending the use from the date of the order, which he claimed exceeded the board's authority because the zoning officer could not breathe new life into the use.
  • Mr. Schaller, representing River's Edge, countered that the board acted within its broad authority under state and county law to make decisions "that ought to be made," and that the original decision was supported by equitable tolling and detrimental reliance on the county attorney's written advice that the use was not abandoned. He asked the board to affirm its original order.
  • Board Counsel Attorney Brown provided legal analysis: he noted that despite procedural defects (failure to mail notice to all parties and file an affidavit), the motion was timely and based on a mistake of law. However, he recommended denying reconsideration on the merits due to three independent grounds supporting the original order: equitable tolling, detrimental reliance, and the inapplicability of the Mark Lounge case. He advised the board to make a motion to deny the request.
  • Board members discussed the motion. Mr. Chasada expressed initial inclination to agree that the county had standing but was persuaded by the equitable arguments and case law interpretation. Ms. Walker supported denial to allow the applicant to restart his restaurant. Mr. Trainer strongly opposed, stating the board had made a mistake by ignoring the statutory mandate on abandonment and that the applicant's eight-year delay was due to his own noncompliance, not county or state delay. Mr. Watkins expressed surprise that the county's mistake-of-law argument was not raised during the public hearing and said he did not accept that argument. Chair Humbert acknowledged a prior prejudicial policy remark made at a work session and noted it was inappropriate.

Key Outcomes

• Vote on Motion to Deny Reconsideration: Motion by Mr. Chasada, seconded by Jennifer Walker, to deny the county's motion for reconsideration. The roll call vote resulted in 4 in favor (Vice Chair Watkins, Ms. Walker, Mr. Chasada, Chair Humbert) and 1 opposed (Mr. Trainer). The motion carried, thereby denying the reconsideration request and affirming the board's original decision.
• Next Steps: Board Counsel will prepare an order memorializing the basis for the denial. The next board meeting is scheduled for October 13, 2026, to hear the Falcon Ridge case, to be held in person in the blue room to accommodate community attendance. No meeting is scheduled for September 2026.