Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting – October 22, 2013
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting – October 22, 2013
The City of Frederick Zoning Board of Appeals met on October 22, 2013, starting at 7:00 PM at City Hall. The meeting included approval of minutes, general public comments, a variance request for a garage reconstruction, and an appeal of a Planning Commission subdivision approval. The board voted to grant the variance and continued the appeal to the November meeting for a written decision.
Consent Calendar
- Unanimously approved the August 27, 2013 meeting minutes as written.
Public Comments & Testimony
- George Rudy (133 West Third Street) discussed land management code deficiencies regarding biotech labs and Fort Detrick, stating he would submit a white paper on public health and safety set-aside.
- Den Pepe Hahn (Frederick, lives in Brunswick) urged better communication between the city and Fort Detrick, noting a carcinogenic plume and that the mayor had not responded to issues raised by Meta Nash.
- During the variance case, the applicant Tammy Welch (338 ½ Park Avenue) requested to rebuild her existing garage to the same size, citing poor condition and the need for safe off-street parking.
- During the appeal case, the appellant's attorney Paul Flynn argued that Montague is a public facility and that the Planning Commission failed to consider the impact of subdivision on public facilities as required by LMC §507A4.
- The appellees (Frederick County and City of Frederick) argued that the subdivision is a routine matter of right, that Montague is not a public facility under the code, and that the appellants lack standing.
Discussion Items
- ZBA13-723V – Variance for 338 ½ Park Avenue: The applicant requested three variances to reconstruct a detached garage: (1) a 3-foot variance from required setbacks along side property lines, (2) a 43.6% variance for rear yard coverage (from 30% to 73.6%), and (3) a variance to maintain the existing impervious surface ratio of 72.5% (exceeding the 50% maximum). Staff recommended approval, citing the lot's narrowness (15.9 feet wide) and the impracticality of building a reasonably sized garage under current code. The board voted unanimously (4-0) to approve all three variances.
- ZBA13-329A – Appeal of Planning Commission Approval for 1910 Rosemont Avenue (North Montevue Campus): The appellants (Charles Trunk, Janie Denh, Kathleen Murphy) challenged the Planning Commission's April 8, 2013 approval of a final subdivision plat to create a 7.538-acre lot for the Citizens Care & Rehabilitation Center and Montague Assisted Living facility. The board heard oral arguments from the appellant (Paul Flynn), the county (John Matthias), and the city (Scott Waxter). Key issues included whether the application was complete, whether the Planning Commission properly considered public facilities under LMC §507, and the appellants' standing. The board deliberated and found that the Planning Commission made errors: it misinterpreted its authority to consider the possible uses of the subdivision and failed to analyze criteria under §507A1–A4, including conformity with the comprehensive plan. The board also upheld its special rules of procedure (on-the-record review) and found that the appellants had standing. The board voted to continue the case to the November 26, 2013 meeting to adopt a formal written opinion reversing the Planning Commission's decision.
Key Outcomes
- Variance granted: Approved ZBA13-723V with four votes in favor (Chair Racheff, Vice Chair Aronow, Member Sisson, Member Hicks). The applicant may reconstruct the garage to the same dimensions.
- Appeal continued: The board will issue a written decision at the November 2013 meeting, with the consensus that the Planning Commission's approval should be reversed due to failure to apply the correct legal standards and to consider required criteria under LMC §507.
- Procedural rulings: The board affirmed its special rules of procedure (on-the-record review) as consistent with state law and found that the appellants have standing to bring the appeal.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the October twenty second, twenty thirteen meeting of the City of Frederick Zoning Board of Appeals. A little background for uh some uh folks that uh might not have attended a ZBA meeting uh before. Uh hard to believe that there are some of you out there I know that we're very popular. Uh use of leisure time. Uh, the members of the zoning board of appeals, uh, we are all volunteers. We are all uh residents of the city of Frederick. Uh we are um nominated by the mayor, and those nominations are approved by the Board of Aldermen. Um before us. Uh, a little bit about our rules of procedure uh for everyone, and uh tonight we have two sets of rules and procedure that are in play, and so I'll make that uh clear. Uh, make sure everybody understands that. Um, for the rule for the uh cases that fall under our normal rules of procedure, uh, like a variance to build a garage. Um, I will call your case. Um, if you can make your way to the to the stand in the microphone, that would be great. Um, we'll ask for the staff report. The staff will read the staff report into the record. At the end of the staff report, the staff will make a recommendation concerning the case. That's one item that we will use in our consideration of uh our cases under uh the normal rules of procedure, but it's not the only criteria. Um, we'll then allow the applicant uh to make a statement, uh, either, you know, expand on or elaborate on anything that happened to come up during the staff report. Members of the board might ask the applicant questions. Following that, we'll see if there's any public here, public comment regarding the case. After we take any kind of public comment that we might happen to have, we'll give the applicant an opportunity to wrap up with some closing thoughts. That'll end uh our taking public comment on the case. Following public comment, I'll ask for a motion from the board. Um just so everyone is aware, uh and this applies uh to both matters before us tonight, according to the uh ZBA rules of procedure. We need four votes in the affirmative to pass the motion. We have four members uh before you tonight, and that does qu constitute a quorum under our rules. Um but we need four vote votes, not a simple majority to pass a motion. Um if uh you're speaking tonight and you're at the microphone. If we could have your name and your address uh for the record, if you happen to leave the microphone and come back, if we could have your name again. Uh the reason for that is that tonight's proceedings are all being recorded. Um anyone who's aggrieved by a decision of the zoning board of appeals has the right to appeal that decision to circuit court. And so when the circuit court judge uh listens to the tape and goes over the record, that helps clarify who happens to be speaking at any one time. Uh do we have any questions about tonight's uh normal procedures? No. We also have uh as our second case on the uh DACA tonight, we have an appeal of uh the uh planning commission decision. Appeals of planning commission decisions are handled under our special rules of procedure. Um procedure, we conduct what's called an on the record review of the case. And so what we will be focusing on is the actual record that was created when the planning commission uh adjudicated their findings and when they met. So as a result of that, the only people that will be speaking tonight uh regarding that case will be the appellant and uh the appellees uh and in this case we have two, the planning commission and uh the county. Um and so under our normal rules, um what we would normally have an opportunity for public comment uh under our special rules since it's an on-the-record review and we can't consider new evidence uh we don't take public comment during that. So uh I appreciate that we got a lot of folks out that are interested tonight uh in tonight's cases. Um and uh I understand that there might be some uh times where you fear feel like uh uh jeering folks that you might not agree with or cheering uh statements that you do. Um if uh we could try to keep that at an absolute bare bones minimum. Uh I'd certainly appreciate it. Uh it'll certainly make the proceedings go a little bit easier tonight. Uh if uh anyone happens to have a uh cell phone with them these days, which most folks do, uh if you could set that to vibe vibrate or turn the volume down, uh that would be a big help. Are there any questions concerning uh our rules and how we're gonna conduct today's meeting? Yes, ma'am. Um are you also considering then for what's on record what's been spoken at the original planning commission meeting?
openpublica.com