boa packet 220 n. liberty

Exactly as extracted, unformatted — for checking against the original. The readable version is easier to read.

THE TOWN OF CENTREVILLE 101 LAWYERS ROW CENTREVILLE, MD 21617
410-758-1180 FAX 410-758-4741 WWW.TOWNOFCENTREVILLE.ORG
Memorandum
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Peter Flint, Zoning Administrator
Date: June 10, 2026
Property: Tax Map 44C, Grid 02, Parcel 856
Owner: Waterman’s N. Liberty LLC
Subject: Variance Request – V-02-26
I. Purpose and Project Description
The applicant requests variances to construct a new single-family dwelling on the lot known as 220
N. Liberty Street. The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to review the zoning, design, and
related site considerations associated with the request and forward a recommendation to the
Board of Zoning Appeals.
The current application materials include a Board of Appeals application, site plan, floor plans, and
architectural elevations. The applicant seeks relief from the required front yard setback, side yard
setbacks, aggregate side yard requirement, driveway setback requirement, maximum lot coverage
standard, and any other requirements determined to be applicable through staff review.
II. Property Background
The subject property is a nonconforming lot of record located in the R-2 Residential District. The lot
contains approximately 3,146 square feet of area, with approximately 36.90 feet of frontage along
North Liberty Street, approximately 23 feet of width at the rear lot line, and depths of more than 100
feet along both side lot lines. While the lot depth is generally consistent with the district standards,
the lot is substantially nonconforming with respect to both lot area and lot width.
Staff understands that the lot previously contained a single-family dwelling. A building permit for
the demolition of that structure was issued on April 4, 2017.

Image 1: 2024 Aerial Image Image 2: 2008 Aerial Image
Image 3: 2015 Google Street View Image 4: 2025 Google Street View
The site plan also shows a proposed 10-foot access and maintenance easement to provide access
to the rear yards. Staff believes that, if this easement is intended to be relied upon as part of the
project layout and long-term functionality of the lot, it should be fully executed and recorded prior
to issuance of a building permit.
The property was previously the subject of variance relief in Case No. V-02-17. In that case, the
Board of Appeals granted relief from the front and side yard setback requirements to allow
construction of a replacement single-family dwelling. The current applicant, however, is not the
same applicant that obtained the earlier approval, and the lot has since changed ownership. The
current application should therefore be treated as a new request based on the current owner’s
proposed house design and site plan, rather than as a continuation of the prior case.
The Planning and Zoning Commission previously recommended approval of the earlier request and
found it to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff further notes that the 2017 review and
Board decision addressed front and side yard setback relief and did not include consideration of
Page 2 of 7

buffer yard requirements. The current applicant has evaluated the previously approved footprint
and has determined not to proceed with that earlier concept.
III. Applicable Standards
The Schedule of Zone Regulations for the R-2 Residential District establishes the following
standards for principal structures:
• Minimum front yard setback: 25 feet
• Minimum side yard setback: 10 feet
• Minimum aggregate side yards: 22 feet
• Minimum rear yard setback: 30 feet
• Maximum lot coverage: 30%
The Board of Appeals application for the current request states that relief is sought from the zoning
ordinance requirements for building setbacks and lot coverage. Section §170-32.C.2 also requires
that driveway entrances be set back a minimum of 7.5 feet from a side property line. Additionally,
staff has identified a potential need for a variance from § 170-42, Buffer Yards.
IV. Requested Relief
Based on the site plan submitted for 220 N. Liberty Street, staff understands the applicant to be
requesting the following relief:
1. Front Yard Variance
Required: 25.0 feet
Proposed: 23.8 feet
Relief Requested: 1.2 feet
2. North Side Yard Variance
Required: 10 feet minimum
Proposed: 4.0 feet
Relief Requested: approximately 6.0 feet
3. South Side Yard Variance
Required: 10 feet minimum
Proposed: 4.71 feet
Relief Requested: approximately 5.3 feet
4. Aggregate Side Yard Variance
Required: 22.0 feet
Proposed: 8.71 feet
Relief Requested: approximately 13.3 feet
Page 3 of 7

5. Lot Coverage Variance
Permitted: 30% maximum
Proposed: 31.7% (999 sq. ft.)
Relief Requested: 1.7% (55 sq. ft.)
*Note: Lot coverage does not include the sidewalk.
6. Driveway Entrance Variance
Required: 7.5 feet minimum from side property line
Proposed: 0.0 feet
Relief Requested: 7.5 feet
*Note: The proposed driveway will utilize the existing curb cut located at the side property
line (see Image 4).
7. Buffer Yard Variance
The applicant seeks variance relief from the buffer yard requirements of § 170-42 to the
extent determined to be applicable to this lot.
V. Planning Commission Review Role
Section 170-59 provides that the Planning and Zoning Commission be apprised of variance
requests so that it may evaluate the proposal for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and
comment, if necessary.
The Comprehensive Plan provides the Town’s broader policy direction, while the Development
Design Standards serve as one of the tools used to implement that direction at the project level.
The Design Standards expressly state that they are intended to implement the Comprehensive Plan
and ensure consistency with the objectives of the Community Plan. They also require that single-
family residential and infill development be compatible with surrounding residential structures.
VI. Design Standards Analysis
The submitted floor plans and elevations provide sufficient information for the Planning
Commission to understand the proposed dwelling’s general scale, massing, roof form, and overall
appearance.
In general, the proposal reflects a residential infill form through the use of a front porch, pitched
roof forms, vertically proportioned windows, and conventional residential detailing. These features
are generally consistent with the Residential Design Standards applicable to infill development.
While the side elevations are relatively plain, they do not exceed the 30-foot horizontal façade
length that triggers the more specific articulation requirement in the Design Standards. Overall,
staff finds the 220 proposed design to be generally consistent with the intent of the Town’s
residential design standards for infill development.
Page 4 of 7

VII. Buffer Yard Considerations
Section 170-42 establishes a mechanical process for determining required buffer yards by
identifying zoning on both sides of the property boundary, determining whether adjoining land is
vacant or developed, classifying adjacent streets, and then referring to the applicable tables.
Because North Liberty Street is classified as an arterial road, the street buffer table would
technically indicate Buffer Yard B requirement along the street frontage of an R-2 lot.
At the same time, the purpose and structure of § 170-42 suggest that the buffer yard provisions
were principally intended to address future development impacts and transitions between differing
land uses. Section 170-42 states that buffer yards are intended to minimize the negative impact of
any future uses on neighboring uses, and other provisions of the section address vacant land,
phased development, and the respective responsibilities of initial and subsequent development. In
staff’s view, those provisions do not fit neatly with redevelopment of a small, historic
nonconforming lot of record for a single-family detached dwelling in the older core of the Town.
Staff further notes that in the prior 2017 variance proceeding for 220 N. Liberty Street, the Town’s
review and the Board’s decision addressed front and side yard setback relief and did not include
consideration of buffer yard requirements. Staff therefore questions whether strict application of
the buffer yard requirements is appropriate in this context.
The applicant will be requesting variance relief related to the buffer yard requirements as they may
be determined to apply to this lot. Staff believes approach is appropriate in order to place the issue
directly before the Board of Zoning Appeals.
VIII. Critical Area and Tree Canopy Considerations
The lot is within the Critical Area, with most of the lot within Intensely Developed Area (IDA). No
portion of the lot is within the Buffer, as the property is located at the outer edge of the mapped
Buffer area. The project nevertheless remains subject to applicable Critical Area requirements,
including the residential 10% pollutant reduction requirement.
The submitted site plan shows a general stormwater management approach through rooftop
drainage maps, non-rooftop disconnection areas, and drywell-related details. Final technical
stormwater review is completed through the applicable County permitting process. Staff will review
submitted materials for consistency with the applicable 10% pollutant reduction requirement prior
to issuance of a building permit.
The proposal also results in the removal of the existing tree canopy on the lot and therefore relies on
replacement canopy rather than preservation of existing trees. The tree canopy table shows 731
square feet of existing canopy on the lot, all of which is proposed to be removed, and 1,600 square
feet of replacement canopy is proposed through the planting of one large tree.
Chapter 145 requires a minimum healthy tree canopy of 20% per residential lot in the R-2 District.
The submitted tree canopy note allows final tree selection at a later date, subject to compliance
with Chapter 145 and approval by the Zoning Administrator. The note also specifies that the final
Page 5 of 7

planting schedule must identify the species, caliper, and location of all required trees and provide
canopy credit equal to or greater than the minimum required.
Chapter 145 further provides that use and occupancy permits for individual residential lots are
withheld until required tree planting is complete, unless planting is seasonally deferred by the
Zoning Administrator.
IX. Staff Analysis of Variance Standards
Staff recognizes that the Board of Zoning Appeals is the body charged with making the formal
findings required for the granting of a variance. The following analysis is provided to assist the
Planning and Zoning Commission in its review and formulation of a recommendation.
1. Unique Physical Conditions.
Staff finds that the subject property is a nonconforming lot of record with substandard lot
area and width. Although the lot depth is generally consistent with the district standards, its
limited area and width create practical difficulty in fully meeting the dimensional
requirements of the R-2 District. The earlier 2017 staff memorandum for this same property
identified these same physical conditions, noting that the lot was substantially undersized
and narrowed toward the rear.
2. Practical Difficulty / Reasonable Use.
Staff finds that literal enforcement of the R-2 setback, driveway setback, lot coverage, and
buffer yard requirements would unreasonably restrict redevelopment of the lot as a single-
family residential homesite. The lot previously contained a single-family dwelling, and both
the earlier staff analysis and prior Board approval recognized the site as appropriate for
redevelopment with a single-family residence.
3. Not Self-Created.
Staff finds that the conditions giving rise to the request are not the result of actions by the
current applicant, but rather stem from the lot’s longstanding nonconforming dimensions
and configuration. The earlier Board decision similarly found that the property had been
reduced to its current size long before the applicant’s ownership and prior to enactment of
the zoning code.
4. Minimum Relief Necessary.
Staff finds that the requested relief appears generally proportional to the lot’s physical
constraints and is intended to allow reasonable residential use of the property. Staff notes
that a smaller house footprint previously received variance approval on this lot; however,
the current application is based on a different house design and a different owner. The
Board of Appeals will ultimately determine whether the relief requested represents the
minimum necessary under the facts of the application.
5. Harmony with the Ordinance and Surrounding Area.
Staff finds that redevelopment of the lot with a single-family dwelling is consistent with the
Page 6 of 7

residential character of the area and with the general intent of the R-2 District. The earlier
staff memorandum concluded that residential redevelopment of the property would be
compatible with nearby dwellings and the established development pattern of the
neighborhood, and the Planning and Zoning Commission previously found the
redevelopment proposal to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Subject to the
Board of Appeals’ determination on the variance request, staff does not find the proposal to
be inherently injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
X. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a favorable
recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the requested variances for 220 N. Liberty
Street.
If the Planning and Zoning Commission concurs, staff further recommends that the following be
included as part of its recommendation:
1. The proposed access and maintenance easement shown on the site plan should be fully
executed and recorded prior to issuance of a building permit if it is intended to be relied
upon as part of the project.
Page 7 of 7

APG Media of Chesapeake, LLC 07/06/26
3107577
29088 Airpark Drive
Easton, MD 21601
BOARD EXHIBIT #1 V-02-26
CERTIFICATE OF
PUBLICATION
STATE OF : MARYLAND
COUNTY OF: Queen Anne's County
This is to certify that the annexed legal
advertisement has been published in the
publications and insertions listed below.
The Town of Centreville
"Case No. V-02-26 (RO)..." was published in 101 Lawyers Row Centreville, MD 21617
www.TownofCentreville.org
Tel. 410-758-1180 Fax. 410-758-4741
the:
NOTICE OF HEARING
Application has been made to the Town of Centreville Board of Zoning Appeals by Waterman’s
Bay Times - Record Observer 07/03/26 N 17 . 0 L , i A be rt r i t c y l e S V tr I e , e S t e , c L t L io C n . , 1 C 70 a - s 5 e 9 ( N C o ) . o V f - th 0 e 2 - Z 26 o , n i r n e g q u O e r s d t i i n n a g n v c a e r o ia f n t c h e e s T u o n w d n e o r f t h C e e n a t u re th v o ill r e it y a n o d f C C h h a a p p t t e e r r
170, Article IX, Attachment 2, Schedule of Zone Regulations, to permit variances from the strict
application of the required front, side, and aggregate yard setback requirements and lot
coverage limitations for the R-2 Residential District; Chapter 170, Article IV, Section 170-32 to permit a
variance from the required driveway entrance distance from side lot lines; and Chapter 170, Article
IV, Section 170-42, Buffer Yards, to the extent determined to be applicable to this property.
The property is located at 220 N. Liberty Street, is zoned R-2 Residential, and is further described
as Parcel 0856, Tax Map 044C, Third Election District, Queen Anne’s County, Maryland. The
property is owned by Waterman’s N. Liberty Street, LLC.
Take notice that this application will be considered at a public hearing on Wednesday, July 22,
2026, at 7:00 p.m. in the second-floor meeting room of the Liberty Building, 107 N. Liberty Street,
Centreville, MD 21617.
The Board of Zoning Appeals
Town of Centreville
3107577 RO 7/3/2026
Orestes Baez
President & Publisher

BOARD EXHIBIT #4 V-02-26