the State law in 2004, it was not added to the Code until May 12, 2005. Further, the County argues that the Board incorrectly stated that appellants had to satisfy each of the 12 variance criteria, as opposed to considering them as a package, pursuant to Lewis v. Dep’t of Natural Res., 377 Md. 382, 833 A.2d 563 (2003). We disagree and shall explain. The State Critical Area Program provides that its purpose is to establish a resource protection program for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays and their tributaries. Maryland Code (2000 Repl.Vol. & Supps. 2002-2006), § 8-1801(b)(l) of the Natural Resources Article (“N.R.”). The program was implemented “on a cooperative basis between the State and affected local governments, with local governments establishing and implementing their ) (<HOLDING>); and Mastandrea v. North, 361 Md. 107, 760
holding that no one factor is determinative and the weakness of one factor may be overborne by the strength of the others holding that no single factor controls and that all factors must be weighed in light of fundamental fairness and the circumstances of the case holding that the availability of the icrp is but one factor to be considered in determining undue hardship but it is not determinative holding that the determination of unwarranted hardship was the determinative factor in granting a variance and all other factors constituted guidance and could not be construed individually holding that no one factor is determinative and the weakness of  one factor may be overborne by the strength of the others