My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/2016
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2016
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/2016
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:25:52 AM
Creation date
8/30/2016 11:33:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
09/01/2016
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
414
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
l <br /> i I <br /> a. <br /> Zoning Bulletin July 10, 2016 Volume 10 Issue 13 <br /> Variance—Waterfront property j <br /> 'l owner seeks variance on basis that <br /> 'i his inability to access water is an <br /> "unwarranted hardship" <br /> Environmental organization counters that <br /> a there is no "unwarranted hardship" because <br /> a home sits on the property and therefore <br /> a <br /> all reasonable and significant use of the <br /> l property is not denied without variance <br /> Citation: Assateague Coastal Trust, Inc. v. Schwalbach, 2016 WL <br /> ,I <br /> 2956538 (Md. 2016) <br /> MARYLAND(05/23/16)—This case addressed the issue of whether, <br /> to prove an "unwarranted hardship" necessary for a variance under <br /> Maryland's Critical Area law, an applicant must demonstrate a denial <br /> of all reasonable and significant use of the entire property, or must <br /> instead show only a denial of a reasonable and significant use of the <br /> property. The case more specifically addressed whether the inability of <br /> a riparian property.owner to exercise the riparian right to access navi- <br /> gable water amounts to an"unwarranted hardship"that would deny the <br /> applicant of a "reasonable and significant use of the entire parcel or <br /> lot." <br /> The Background/Facts: Roy T. Schwalbach ("Schwalbach") <br /> owned waterfront property in Worcester County (the "County"), <br /> Maryland. He sought to build an extended pier—that would measure 3 <br /> feet in width by 180 feet in length—to access navigable water from his <br /> waterfront property in a community where piers and boating were <br /> 1 "common."Under State and local law, Schwalbach need a variance to <br /> build the proposed pier. <br /> Under the State's Critical Area law, the State's General Assembly <br /> established the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Critical Area <br /> Protection Program (the "Critical Area Program"). The Critical Area <br /> Program is a cooperative program between the State and local jurisdic- <br /> tions to ensure that land near Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic coastal <br /> bays has special protection against development that might cause <br /> environmental damage. Because the program is cooperative, State law <br /> creates some restrictions, and local law creates others. Unique to <br /> Worcester County,under the County ordinance(the"Ordinance"),new <br /> ©2016 Thomson Reuters 9 <br /> i <br /> i <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.