The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) met on August 28, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall to hear oral arguments in Case ZBA12-76, an appeal of the Planning Commission's January 9, 2012 approval of a revision to the Worman's Mill Planned Neighborhood Development (PND) master plan. The meeting focused exclusively on the appeal; no general public comments were given, and the board approved the previous meeting's minutes. The board did not issue a decision that night, instead scheduling a continuation for deliberation and written findings. Consent Calendar - Approval of June 26, 2012 Minutes: The board voted unanimously by voice vote (with a motion by Ms. Colby and a second by Mr. Dace) to approve the minutes of the June 26, 2012 meeting as written. Public Comments & Testimony - No general public comments were offered. Discussion Items - Appeal of Worman's Mill Master Plan Revision (ZBA12-76): The appellant, represented by Leslie Powell, argued that the Planning Commission's approval of a revised master plan for Worman's Mill was procedurally and legally flawed. Key arguments included: - The ZBA’s special rules violate Maryland Article 66B, Section 6.07(H)(2) by shifting the burden of proof to the appellant and prohibiting new evidence, thus denying due process. - The application for revision did not include signatures of all property owners within the PND (over 1,000 owners), as required by both the 1986 and 2005 Land Management Codes (LMC). - The Planning Commission lacked authority to approve a density increase exceeding 10% in any single section (here, the village center saw a 40% increase in density) without a new application signed by all owners. - The Planning Commission failed to adequately articulate the basis for its decision, particularly concerning the zero-foot setback and the change in land use designation for an assisted-living facility. - No traffic impact analysis for the proposed 171-unit apartment building was presented. - Appellants renewed objections to the board’s special rules, calling them an impermissible retroactive application that violates substantive and procedural due process. - Respondents (Worman’s Mill Development Company, represented by Paul Rose and Rand Weinberg, and the Planning Commission, represented by Scott Waxter) countered: - The standard of review is record review (not de novo), as established by LMC Section 315 and the Shakespeare case; the board must affirm unless the Planning Commission was arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, or illegal. - The application was properly filed by the developer under LMC 910E, which does not require signatures of all property owners for revisions. Only the owner of the affected parcels (the developer) needed to sign. - The overall density of the PND was not increased; density was transferred from other undeveloped sections owned by the developer. The 10% threshold for departmental approval does not limit the Planning Commission’s authority to approve larger transfers. - The Planning Commission thoroughly considered the proposal over multiple hearings (December 2011 and January 2012), workshops, and a field trip. The motion by Alderman Russell incorporated the required findings, including consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and design excellence. - Appellants’ due process rights were satisfied by public hearings, written briefs, and oral argument; Maryland law does not require new evidence in appellate proceedings. - The request for joinder of new appellants on the night of oral argument violated the board’s special rules (Section C1–D) and was objected to. - Board Member Questions: Members probed the legal foundation for transferring density over 10%, the role of “implicit authority,” the relationship between LMC 910E and the 1986 code, and the adequacy of the Planning Commission’s articulation of findings. A recurring theme was whether requiring unanimous property owner signatures would render PND revisions impractical. Key Outcomes - No Decision Reached: The board voted to continue the case to a special meeting on September 11, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. (location to be determined, with broadcast capabilities). During this follow-up meeting, the board will deliberate, craft written findings of fact, and issue a final decision on whether to affirm, reverse, or modify the Planning Commission’s approval. - Procedural Matters: The board acknowledged that four main issues must be resolved: (1) whether the Planning Commission had authority to approve the master plan revision, (2) whether the application required signatures of all property owners, (3) whether the Planning Commission adequately articulated the basis for its decision, and (4) whether the ZBA's special rules violate appellants' due process rights. The board will also consider arguments about the 10% density threshold and the commission’s findings on setbacks and land use changes. - Vote to Continue: Motion by Mr. Dace, seconded by Mr. Patchin, to adjourn and reconvene on September 11, 2012. All members voted in favor.
