← All documents

june 17 2026 planning commission packet

Other June 17, 2026 · 29 page(s)

View original PDF ↗ Meeting

Full extracted text

The document's complete text, exactly as extracted — not a summary. Use “Summarize this document” above for the short version.

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

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

THE TOWN OF CENTREVILLE 101 LAWYERS ROW CENTREVILLE, MD 21617
410-758-1180 FAX 410-758-4741 WWW.TOWNOFCENTREVILLE.ORG
Maryland Department of Planning
Planning Best Practices
Attn: David Dahlstrom, AICP
Re: Annual Report Calendar Year (CY2025)
Dear Mr. Dahlstrom:
The Town of Centreville Planning and Zoning Commission approved the following annual report
for the reporting year 2025 as required under §1-207(b) and §1-208(c)(1)(i) and (c)(3)(ii) of the
Land Use Article on June 17, 2026 In addition, this report has been filed with the local
legislative body.
1. Number of new Residential Permits Issued inside and outside of the Priority Funding
Area (PFA):
Table 1: New Residential Permits Issued
Inside and Outside the Priority Funding Area (PFA)
Residential – Calendar Year 2025 PFA Non - PFA Total
# New Residential Permits Issued 2 0 2
2. Maryland’s Sustainable Growth Planning Principles (Principles) were signed into law by
Governor Moore on April 8, 2025, following the Maryland General Assembly approval of
House Bill 286. The use of the Principles will now be required for all new comprehensive
plans and comprehensive plan updates. Has the planning commission reviewed these
new requirements and the Sustainable Growth Implementation Guide?
Y N
3. Is your jurisdiction scheduled to update the comprehensive plan or submit a 5-Year Mid-
Cycle review report this year?
Y N
Note: To find out if your jurisdiction is scheduled to submit a comprehensive plan update
or a 5-year Mid-Cycle review report, please consult the Transition Schedules at:
https://planning.maryland.gov/pages/OurWork/compPlans/ten-year.aspx

4. Were there any growth-related changes, including land use changes, zoning ordinance
changes, rezonings, new schools, changes in water or sewer service, or municipal
annexations that changed municipal and unincorporated boundaries?
Y N
If yes, please list the annexation resolution(s), describe or attach a map of the changes, and
provide a description of consistency of internal, state or adjoining local jurisdiction plans. Have
you submitted copies of each adopted resolution been to: Georgeanne Carter, Legislative
Counsel Municipal Resolution Reposition Department of Legislative Services, 90 State Circle,
Annapolis MD, 21401-1991. MDP would like to inform municipalities of 2025’s Senate Bill 245 -
Municipalities – Annexation Resolutions – Submission to the Department of Planning. This bill,
effective October 1, 2025, requires municipalities to send a copy of the signed annexation
resolution(s) to MDP within 10 days of when the resolution(s) take effect. This is an addition to
the existing list of entities outlined in Section 4-414 of the Local Government Article. To meet
this requirement and expedite MDP’s updating of the PFA status, please send Daniel Mullinix
(daniel.mullinix@maryland.gov) a copy of the notification transmitted to the Department of
Legislative Services.
5. To expedite MDP’s updating of the PFA status, please send Daniel
Mullinix (daniel.mullinix@maryland.gov) a copy of the notification transmitted to the
Department of Legislative Services.
Y N
6. Did your municipality identify and/or implement recommendations related to the
following general planning topics, to improve the local planning and/or development
process? Please select all that apply.
Y N
 Green Infrastructure  Revitalization and Infill
 Zoning Reform  Bike/Ped Planning
 Climate Change  Commercial
 Affordable/Workforce Redevelopment
Housing  Sustainable Growth
 Equity  Placemaking
 Resilience  Aging Population
 Water/Air Quality  Sensitive Area Preservation
 Water/Sewer Capacity  Expedited Review for
 Brownfield Remediation Preferred Projects
Please describe any other planning improvements identified or implemented in CY2025.
Page 2 of 3

7. Are there any issues that MDP can assist you with in 2026? If yes, please describe.
Y N
The Town would appreciate MDP assistance in understanding how municipalities that are
not located within a Metropolitan Planning Organization boundary can best identify,
prioritize, and advance transportation projects. Specifically, the Town would like guidance
on how Centreville can coordinate with Queen Anne’s County, MDOT, and other regional
or state planning partners to bring forward local transportation priorities for
consideration in state and regional funding programs, including projects that support
pedestrian connectivity, roadway safety, growth management, and implementation of
the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.
8. Have all Planning (Commission/Board) and Board of Appeals members completed the
Maryland Planning Commissioners Association (MPCA) training course?
Y N
Sincerely,
Peter Flint
Zoning Administrator
Page 3 of 3

ISSUED BUILDING PERMITS
May 1 - 31, 2026
Permit # Applicant Owner Address Type Issue Date*
Fabricate two columns out of 4" I-
BP-33-26 Mason Reed Charles Geswhwim 2647 Centreville Road beam w/anchor plates 5/4/2026
BP-36-26 Economy Restoration Rebecca Lloyd 126 Sonata Way replace roof 5/4/2026
BP-37-26 Kevin Duckworth 227 Orchestra Place replace roof 5/4/2026
BP-38-26 Tina Crouse/Solar Energy World Sarah Terrance 218 Green Street Install roof solar panels 5/6/2026
BP-39-26 Robert Hays Robert Hays 300 Elm fence & shed 5/4/2026
BP-40-26 TL Fence, LLC Tracy Linn 305 N. Clommerce Street Remove/install Wooden Fence 5/6/2026
BP-41-26 TL Fence, LLC Tim O'Brien 403 Chesterfield Avenue Remove/Install Wooden Fence 5/6/2026
Niel Ellick/Economy Restoration,
BP-42-26 LLC Warde Stringham 133 Symphony Way Roof Replacement 5/8/2026
Susan O'Connell/FA Outdoor Deck w/Screened Porch and
BP-43-26 Spaces LLC Gwynn Sperandeo 210 Lurgan Lane steps 5/12/2026
Niel Ellick/Economy Restoration,
BP-44-26 LLC Jonathan Krisman 313 Trickling Brook Way Roof Replacement 5/11/2026
BP-45-26 Long Fence Co. Young Kim 202 Brooke Run Lane Fence 5/12/2026
Niel Ellick/Economy Restoration,
BP-46-26 LLC Robert Anderson 239 Orchestra Place Roof Replacement 5/15/2026
Niel Ellick/Economy Restoration,
BP-47-26 LLC Lucy Hearn 710 Harmony Way Roof Replacement 5/15/2026
Niel Ellick/Economy Restoration,
BP-48-26 LLC Robert King 331 Overture Way Roof Replacement 5/21/2026
QAC Historical Society-Wright's
BP-51-26 Lins Construction LLC Chance 119 S. Commerce Street Roof Replacement 5/29/2026
* based on the approval date by Zoning Administrator