Ocean City Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting - April 23, 2026

The Ocean City Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, April 23, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall. The meeting covered administrative approvals of prior meeting minutes and findings of fact, followed by three public hearings: a special parking exception for a 66-unit condominium development (BZA 2737), after-the-fact variances for a single-family home built in the wrong location (BZA 2738), and a variance for a fire escape staircase (BZA 2739).

Consent Calendar

• Approved the minutes from the March 26, 2026 meeting (4-0-1, with Emily Nock absent).
• Approved Findings of Fact for BZA 2735 (Embers, LLC) – motion carried 4-0-1.
• Approved Findings of Fact for BZA 2736 (Matthew H. Fogle) – motion carried 4-0-1.

Public Comments & Testimony

BZA 2737 – 14501 Coastal Highway (OC 107 146th Street, LLC)

• Four members of the public spoke in opposition: Dennis Dare (former city engineer, Kane Woods resident) argued that tandem parking would lead to overflow street parking and that the reduced space dimensions (38 ft vs. 40/42 ft) would not accommodate large vehicles common among visitors. Dave Freebury (501 Seaweed Lane, Kane Woods) cited worsening traffic and parking in the area. Linda Deaton (13906 Sea Captain Road, Kane Woods) raised safety concerns and opposed tandem parking. Robin Yates (729 Laurel Avenue, Kane Woods) measured her vehicles and found they would not fit, also noting that handicap access and bike racks would be impractical.

BZA 2738 – 179 Beachcomber Lane (Sean and Patricia Chenworth)

• Two neighbors spoke in opposition: Carmelo Roth (owner of 181 Beachcomber Lane) testified that the house was built too close to her property, causing air conditioning units to encroach and forcing people to walk on her land. She also reported damage to her shed and landscaping. Mark Miller (owner of 177 Beachcomber Lane) stated that the applicants failed to clean up debris and nails, and that the parking pad and porch could be modified. He warned of safety hazards and liability.
• A letter from Joan Cullison (180 Beachcomber Lane) was read into the record, opposing the variance because larger vehicles would overhang the sidewalk or park on the street.

BZA 2739 – 202 8th Street (202 8th Street, LLC)

• No public comments were received.

Discussion Items

BZA 2737 – Special Parking Exception for Tandem Parking and Reduced Depth

• Staff presented that the applicant sought two special parking exceptions: (1) to allow 132 tandem parking spaces for 66 condominium units, and (2) to reduce the depth of those 66 tandem spaces from 42 ft to 38 ft. The code permits tandem parking by right only for single-family, duplex, and townhouse uses; condominiums require a special exception. Staff noted that the application was advertised as 36 ft but corrected to 38 ft. The applicant argued that tandem parking is common in Ocean City and cited the Bay Berry project as a precedent. The architect, Jeff Schoellkopf, testified that 38 ft is adequate for most vehicles and that reducing the depth allowed more landscaping. The applicant further argued that the special exception standard from Mossburg v. Montgomery County requires approval once criteria are met unless adverse effects are greater at this location. Board members questioned enforcement of vehicle size restrictions and the adequacy of the parking for larger trucks. Staff noted the 10 ft setback from Coastal Highway may need to be 25 ft under new ordinance, and that the plan is conceptual. After deliberation, the board found no evidence that the full provision of parking is unnecessary, citing that the character and use (multifamily condominiums) do not warrant a waiver, and that the proposal could negatively affect neighboring properties. The motion to deny the first request (tandem configuration) passed 5-0. The second request (reduced depth) was then also denied 5-0, as moot and for the same reasons.

BZA 2738 – After-the-Fact Special Parking Exception and Variances

• Staff explained that the applicants built a new house as their own general contractors, but the as-built survey revealed the house was placed 0.39 to 0.68 ft into the side yard setback and the parking pad was 19.14 ft deep instead of 20 ft. The applicants attributed the error to a surveyor who incorrectly staked the property line. They requested a special parking exception and three variances to allow the house to remain as built. The applicants stated they acted in good faith and relied on the surveyor. Board members discussed the two-part variance test: uniqueness of the property and practical difficulty. The board found no evidence that the lot itself was unique (standard rectangular lot in a mobile home park). While the applicants faced a hardship, the board determined that the hardship was not caused by the property's unique characteristics but by surveyor error, which is not a valid basis for a variance. The motion to deny all three variances passed 5-0. Subsequently, the parking exception was also denied 5-0 on the grounds that no evidence showed that the full provision of parking is unnecessary.

BZA 2739 – Variance for Fire Escape Staircase

• Staff recommended approval of a variance of 1.9 ft from the 5 ft side yard setback for a proposed staircase required by the Fire Marshal as a second means of egress. The building is an existing multi-unit rental property with a legal nonconforming setback of 4.6 ft. The Fire Marshal, Tom Schubert, testified that the staircase was the preferred option to meet life safety codes and that the location is the only feasible place. The applicant's surveyor, Frank Lynch, confirmed the proposed 3.1 ft setback. Board members debated whether the property itself was unique. The land is a standard rectangular lot; the board noted that uniqueness for a variance focuses on the land, not improvements. The motion to deny failed for lack of a second (only one vote in favor). No further motion was made, so no decision was reached on the variance.

Key Outcomes

• BZA 2737 (OC 107 146th Street, LLC) – Both special parking exception requests were denied (5-0). The board concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the full provision of parking is unnecessary under Section 110-94(2)(b), and that the proposal would adversely affect adjacent properties.
• BZA 2738 (Sean and Patricia Chenworth) – All three after-the-fact variances were denied (5-0) for lack of property uniqueness. The after-the-fact special parking exception was also denied (5-0) for failure to show that the full provision of parking is unnecessary.
• BZA 2739 (202 8th Street, LLC) – No decision was made. A motion to deny the variance failed for lack of a second; the board did not take further action.