boa packet 216 n. liberty

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 singlefamily 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 singlefamily 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 sitespecific 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