Opinion ID: 1461769
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lewis' Property

Text: In April of 1999, petitioner purchased two tracts of land in Wicomico County located on opposite sides of Cross Thorofare, a tributary of the Nanticoke River, which is entirely inside the county's Chesapeake Bay Critical Area (Critical Area). The western tract of 218.78 acres is comprised entirely of marshland, while the eastern tract of 76.80 acres is comprised of 69.57 acres of marshland and 7.23 acres in three upland areas. The largest of these upland areas, Phillips Island, is 5.30 acres in size and is the subject of the litigation in the case sub judice. At the time of petitioner's purchase of these two tracts of land, the only man-made improvements located on the property were an old boat pier and storage building on Phillips Island [6] and 12-15 duck blinds in the western tract of marshland. Petitioner testified that he wanted to use the property just for recreational use. He stated, It was [used to] spend the night. You could go out there, you could eat, spend the night, hunt early. (alteration added). According to testimonial and photographic evidence, Phillips Island is shaped relatively like a boot. Because of the island's irregular shape, nearly the entire island, except for three narrow, irregularly-shaped, and unconnected areas, lies within the Critical Area Buffer, as defined by the County Code. [7] In fact, 5.06 of the 5.30 acres, or 95.5 percent, of the island is within the protected Buffer. The main vegetation of the totally wooded island consists of mature oaks and loblolly pine trees. The understory, [8] except for the 20-25 feet of the Buffer closest to the marsh, is sparse with greenbriar and sassafras. According to testimony, the inland portion of the island has little ground cover, i.e., shrubs, due to, in part, the tree canopy of the wooded area blocking out sunlight and limiting this type of growth. Later in 1999, petitioner began to build a seasonal hunting camp on Phillips Island without gaining approval or permits from the County. [9] The camp consisted of, or was to consist of, six buildings: one main, 40' x 40' lodge with a kitchen and bath (Building 1), one 29'x 20' bath house/restroom (Building 3), one 17' x 18' bunk room (Building 2), two 14' x 16' bunk rooms (Buildings 4 and 5) and a 39' x 18' storage shed (Building 6). Buildings 1-5 were not built on a conventional foundation; they are supported on wood posts about two to three feet above the ground. The total footprint of the six buildings is 3,636 square feet. After halting construction, petitioner commissioned a survey of the island for the purpose of ascertaining the location of his camp's buildings in relation to the Critical Area Buffer. The survey illustrated the existence of three narrow, irregularly-shaped, and unconnected areas, totaling 10,463 square feet (4.5 percent of the island), which were the only areas of Phillips Island not located within the Buffer. Of the 10,463 square feet not located within the Buffer, 10,073 square feet was required as an area for the location of sewage disposal for the hunting camp. The County's planning staff attempted to reduce the 10,073 square foot sewage disposal area required by the State Health Department in order to make more of the non-Buffer area available for the construction of petitioner's hunting cabins. The County staff persuaded the Health Department, due in part to the hunting camp's seasonal and private use nature, to reduce the area needed for sewage disposal. Thus, petitioner received Health Department approval for a reduced sewage disposal area of 5,811.92 square feet. As a result of that reduction, the County staff suggested that petitioner move four of the six buildings from the Buffer to the non-Buffer area salvaged from the prior sewage disposal area. Petitioner then applied for a variance for a personal hunting camp with four buildings inside the non-Buffer area previously designated for part of the sewage disposal area, as suggested by the County planners, and two buildings inside the Buffer. It is uncontroverted that petitioner's use of the property for hunting purposes would be a permitted use in the agricultural rural zoning district where Phillips Island is located. The county planning staff then suggested that petitioner employ an environmental consultant. Petitioner retained two experienced environmental consultants to assess whether his hunting camp would have adverse impacts on the surrounding habitat and water quality. [10] Although their reasoning was somewhat different, the consultants suggested that petitioner leave all of the camp's buildings in their current location and not to relocate four buildings into the non-Buffer area salvaged from the prior sewage disposal area. They testified that placing the camp outside of the Buffer would have a greater adverse impact on the environment than leaving the buildings within the Buffer, as well as precluding that area from being used as an expanded or replacement sewage disposal area should that need arise in the future. Given these expert opinions, on October 11, 2000, petitioner modified his variance request, thereby requesting the Board to allow him to leave the buildings where they sit. In his Modified Site Plan For Phillips Island, petitioner did propose moving one building, the storage shed, [11] partially into the non-Buffer sewage disposal area.