Zoning Board of Appeals Deliberations on Warman's Mill Appeal - October 2, 2012
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting - October 2, 2012
The Zoning Board of Appeals met on October 2, 2012 at 7:00 PM to continue deliberations on appeal ZBA12-76, which challenged the Planning Commission's January 9, 2012 approval of the Warman's Mill Master Plan (PC11-493PND). The board discussed procedural requirements, the need for a four-vote supermajority to overturn the Planning Commission, and ultimately adopted a letter of findings, conclusions, decision, and order. No public testimony was taken.
Consent Calendar
- None.
Public Comments & Testimony
- No public testimony was taken as this was a continued deliberation session.
Discussion Items
- The board reviewed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared by Chair Jim Racheff, which addressed three key issues: (1) whether procedural requirements (e.g., signatures of all property owners) were needed, (2) whether the Planning Commission had authority to approve an increase in overall density, and (3) that the prevailing minority concluded the Planning Commission failed to follow proper procedures under LMC Section 310F and the 1986 zoning ordinance Section 1607.
- Mr. Dacey suggested clarifying language regarding the four-vote supermajority requirement under LMC Section 312D and ZBA rules of procedure.
- The board discussed that without reaching a four-vote supermajority to overturn, the Planning Commission's decision stands as not in error.
Key Outcomes
- The board adopted (motion by Chair Racheff, second by Mr. Dacey) the letter of findings, conclusions, decision, and order as read into the record, with the added clarification that the appeal failed to achieve the necessary four-vote supermajority under LMC Section 312D.
- Consequently, the Planning Commission's January 9, 2012 unconditional approval of the Warman's Mill Master Plan was upheld, and the appeal was denied.
- The meeting adjourned after the motion was approved.
Meeting Transcript
2012. Tonight. We only have one item for consideration. It's continued deliberations by the zoning board of appeals on an appeal of the August 28th, 2012 Planning Commission approval of application PC one one-493 PND for the Warman's Mill Plan Neighborhood Development. This is continuation from meeting held on August 28th 2012. I'm guessing if anybody is here this evening, it's because you were here previously. But just as uh a little bit of clarification uh in case anybody isn't. Uh the members of the zoning board of appeals are all volunteers. We are appointed by the mayor, and those appointments are confirmed by the Board of Aldermen. Uh also assisting the zoning board of appeals in our activities this evening. Uh to my right and to your left, uh Ms. Leo Ortiz, she is the office manager of the planning department, and she also supports the ZBA. And next to Ms. Mat Ms. Ortiz is Ms. Rachel DePoe. She is the uh assistant attorney with the City of Frederick. Um understanding about tonight's uh procedures. Um just to remind everybody uh given the the um deliberations that we had on August 28th. Um according to the ZBA rules of procedures, uh any motion uh may uh before the ZBA requires four out of five members uh to pass a motion. So a simple majority of three out of five does not hold. We need four to pass a motion. Um we have five voting members on the ZBA and one alternate, Mr. Kennedy uh to my left is the alternate for tonight. Uh um if anyone has any uh cell phones if you could mute those or turn them off or put them on on vibrate, that would be uh greatly appreciated. Um in contrast to our normal uh ZBA activities, we will not be taking any uh public comment or public testimony tonight. Uh so it's just the deliberations, the continued deliberations of the board. There are any questions? Okay, seeing none. Well, do you have any questions about the procedures for tonight? Well, actually, I do. Um I thought you said that it takes four votes to do and to make any decision as a board. That is correct. But so what's it what happens if there aren't four votes? If there aren't four votes, that motion fails and the board will have to entertain another motion. Um so we have had those situations occur before when a supermajority can cannot be reached. Um that you know if that is the situation tonight, we will have to see if we can reach some sort of consensus that that brings the board to a majority uh decision. Um if the board cannot reach a decision, then the um decision of the planning commission will stand as as it was written, because the appeal that is before us tonight is to overturn that decision. Um we need four votes in the affirmative to overturn that decision. So there's supposed to be a written document at the end of the four votes are still. Whatever those findings may be this evening. I understand it's slightly confusing with the super with the supermajority, so I appreciate your your question, and I do want to make sure everybody uh does understand that if it does have an impact given the um public attention on this particular case. Any other questions about the procedures for tonight? No. Okay, hearing none. Uh members of the board. You still have before you case CBA 1276 appeal to the Warmen's uh decision of the planning commission on the Warman's Mill master plan. We may have continued discussion along those lines, or we will uh chair will entertain a motion either way. Well, I have a question, I guess. I have a question.
openpublica.com