boa packet 216 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 857 – 216 N. Liberty Street
Owner: Waterman’s N. Liberty LLC
Subject: Variance Request – V-03-26
I. Purpose and Project Description
The applicant requests variances to construct a new single-family dwelling on the property known
as 216 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 application materials currently submitted include a Board of Appeals application, site plan,
floor plans, and architectural elevations. The applicant seeks relief from the required side yard
setbacks, aggregate side yard requirement, rear yard setback, maximum lot coverage standard, and
any other requirements to be determined 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 4,046 square feet of area, with approximately 40.61 feet of frontage along
North Liberty Street, approximately 38.91 feet of width at the rear lot line, and depths of
approximately 98.31 feet along the north side and 108.18 feet along the south side. 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 and an associated
accessory structure. A permit for demolition of those structures was issued on May 24, 2009.
Historic aerial imagery indicates that 216 N. Liberty Street was previously improved with a single-
family dwelling and functioned as part of the traditional residential development pattern along this
portion of North Liberty Street prior to the construction of the adjoining parking garage.

Image 1: Google Earth Street View from July 2008
Image 2: Google Earth Street view from July 2008
Image 3: 2024 Aerial Image Image 4: 2008 Aerial Image
Page 2 of 7

The site plan also depicts a proposed 10-foot access/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 the issuance of a building permit.
III. Applicable Standards
The Schedule of Zone Regulations for the R-2 Residential District establishes the following relevant
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 indicates that relief is sought from the
zoning ordinance requirements related to building setbacks and lot coverage. 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 216 N. Liberty Street, staff understands the applicant to be
requesting the following relief:
1. North Side Yard Variance
Required: 10 feet minimum
Proposed: 8.2 feet
Relief Requested: approximately 1.8 feet
2. South Side Yard Variance
Required: 10 feet minimum
Proposed: 6.68 feet
Relief Requested: approximately 3.3 feet
3. Aggregate Side Yard Variance
Required: 22.0 feet
Proposed: 14.88 feet
Relief Requested: approximately 7.0 feet
4. Rear Yard Variance
Required: 30.0 feet
Proposed: 26.74 feet
Relief Requested: approximately 3.5 feet
5. Lot Coverage Variance
Permitted: 30% maximum
Page 3 of 7

Proposed: 32.8% (1,328 sq. ft.)
Relief Requested: 2.8% (approximately 113 sq. ft.)
*Note: Lot Coverage Calculation does not include the sidewalk.
6. 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 shall be apprised of variance
requests so that it may evaluate the proposal for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and
provide 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 corrected architectural elevations provide sufficient information for
the Planning Commission to understand the proposed dwelling’s general scale, massing, roof form,
and overall appearance. Historic street-level imagery from 2008 also indicates that the lot was
previously occupied by a relatively tall, narrow single-family dwelling, which supports the
conclusion that a vertically proportioned residential structure on this lot is consistent with the
traditional development pattern along this portion of North Liberty Street. (see Image 1)
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. Those features
are generally consistent with the Residential Design Standards applicable to infill development.
One notable design issue remains. The side elevation of the dwelling proposed for 216 N. Liberty
Street, facing the adjoining parking garage property, presents an approximately 38-foot wall plane
with little articulation. The Residential Design Standards provide that buildings shall include
articulation along facades facing and visible from public view, that flat blank walls are prohibited,
and that horizontal facades longer than 30 feet should be articulated into smaller units using at
least two methods such as roof forms, window patterns, color differentiation, or recesses, offsets,
or massing.
In this case, however, the limited articulation and absence of windows on that wall appear
intentional and related to the unusual adjoining condition created by the multi-story parking garage.
Staff understands this treatment is intended to reduce direct conflicts between the dwelling and
the adjacent garage, including light spill and privacy impacts. Because the Design Standards allow
the Planning Commission to determine applicability and conformity on a case-by-case basis, staff
Page 4 of 7

believes the Commission could reasonably conclude that this treatment is acceptable as a site-
specific response, notwithstanding the general articulation standard.
Overall, staff finds the 216 proposed design to be generally consistent with the intent of the Town’s
residential design standards for infill development.
VII. Buffer Yard Considerations
Section 170-42 establishes a mechanical process for determining required buffer yards by
identifying zoning on both sides of the boundary, determining whether adjoining land is vacant or
developed, classifying adjacent streets, and then referring to the applicable tables. Under that
process, an R-2 lot adjoining a CBD lot would ordinarily indicate Buffer Yard C classification along
the shared boundary. In addition, because North Liberty Street is classified as an arterial road, the
street buffer table would technically indicate a 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 use on neighboring uses, and other provisions 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.
Historic aerial imagery indicates that 216 N. Liberty Street historically functioned as a single-family
residential lot and that the adjoining property to the south was already in parking-related use prior
to construction of the current two-story parking garage. The current garage condition is therefore a
later and more intensive built form, rather than reflective of the historic development pattern of the
block. Street-level imagery also indicates that this portion of North Liberty Street is characterized
by detached houses, open front yards, and sidewalk frontage rather than formal buffer yards. 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 this 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 property within the Intensely Developed Area
(IDA). No portion of the lot is within the Critical Area Buffer. The project 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
Page 5 of 7

stormwater review will be completed through the applicable County permitting process and will be
verified by staff for compliance with the 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 784
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
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, and that its narrow configuration and limited area create practical difficulty
in fully meeting the dimensional requirements of the R-2 District.
2. Practical Difficulty / Reasonable Use.
Staff finds that literal enforcement of the R-2 setback, lot coverage, and buffer yard
requirements would unreasonably restrict development of the lot as a single-family
residential homesite. The lot previously contained a single-family dwelling, and the current
request is intended to allow redevelopment of the property with a new 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.
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. The Board of
Page 6 of 7

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
residential character of the area and with the general intent of the R-2 District. 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 216 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
3107579
29088 Airpark Drive
Easton, MD 21601
BOARD EXHIBIT #1 V-03-26
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-03-26, (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 N.
Bay Times - Record Observer 07/03/26 L A i r b t e ic r l t e y V S I t , r e S e e t, c t L io L n C , 1 C 70 as -5 e 9 N (C o ) . o V f - 0 th 3 e -2 6 Z , o r n e in q g u e O st r i d n i g n a v n a c ri e a n o c f e t s h e u n T d o e w r n th o e f a C u e th n o tr r e it v y i l o le f C an h d a p C te h r a 1 p 7 te 0 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; 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 216 N. Liberty Street, is zoned R-2 Residential, and is further
described as Parcel 0857, 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
3107579 RO 7/3/2026
Orestes Baez
President & Publisher

BOARD EXHIBIT #4 V-03-26