Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting – March 24, 2015

Meeting Overview

The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) convened on March 24, 2015 at 7:00 PM in City Hall to consider one appeal (ZBA14-761A) filed by Carroll Parkway LLC against the Planning Commission's August 11, 2014 approval of a final subdivision plat for the new Frederick High School and West Frederick Middle School at 650 Carroll Parkway and 515 West Patrick Street, Frederick, MD. The appeal argued procedural errors regarding public notice signage and a failure to require a shared driveway agreement under Section 507D of the Land Management Code (LMC). Oral arguments were presented by the appellant, the Board of Education of Frederick County (respondent), and the Planning Commission. The ZBA took a straw poll indicating its intention to deny the appeal, with formal findings to be adopted at the April 2015 meeting.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of Minutes: The board unanimously approved the February 24, 2015 meeting minutes.

Public Comments & Testimony

• No public comments were offered during the designated period.

Discussion Items

• ZBA14-761A – Appeal of Subdivision Plat for Frederick High School
  • Appellant’s Argument (Paul Flynn, representing Carroll Parkway LLC):
    • The appellant owns the Parkview Apartments, which have used Grove Boulevard as their sole access since 1950. The Board of Education (BOE) plans to demolish the curb at the dead end of Grove Boulevard, pave a grassed area, and use a private right-of-way/ easement to access the school site. This would force Parkview residents to share their private driveway with construction traffic and later school buses.
    • Signage Violation (Section 301 LMC): The appellant argued that the BOE failed to post a required public notice sign within view of Grove Boulevard for the mandatory 15-day period before the August 11, 2014 Planning Commission hearing. Although a sign was eventually placed near the tennis courts, it was not in place for the full 15 days. The appellant contended that the LMC definitions (Section 1002) require signs on all street frontages, and because Grove Boulevard is treated as a public thoroughfare in the BOE's proposal, a sign should have been posted at its dead end. The appellant noted that they objected to the signage on August 1, 2014, before the hearing.
    • Section 507D Violation: The appellant argued that the LMC requires a written recorded agreement binding all present and future property owners to ensure common access and shared usage of the driveway (Grove Boulevard). No such agreement exists between the BOE and Carroll Parkway LLC regarding maintenance, liability, or shared use. The appellant asserted this is a legal error, not a factual dispute, and thus no deference is owed to the Planning Commission’s interpretation.
  • Respondent’s Argument (David Severn & Ian Bartman, representing Frederick County Public Schools):
    • The BOE emphasized that this is a consolidation plat (erasing a lot line between two BOE-owned parcels), not a typical subdivision. The appeal is overly technical and ignores the BOE’s extensive community outreach (open houses, surveys, social media) well before the hearing.
    • Signage Compliance: The BOE posted initial signs on May 12, 2014, and replaced them with updated signs on July 24, 2014 (18 days before the hearing, exceeding the 15-day requirement). A sign on Carroll Parkway (the only public street frontage of the BOE property) was maintained throughout. A storm damaged the sign on July 30, but the BOE repaired it by August 4, demonstrating diligent maintenance. The BOE also placed an additional sign near the tennis courts on August 6 as a courtesy. The BOE argued that requiring 24/7 surveillance is impractical and that substantial compliance is sufficient under Maryland law. The Planning Commission’s deputy director confirmed the signs met LMC requirements.
    • Section 507D Inapplicable: The BOE argued that 507D addresses subdivision of a single parcel into multiple lots, not consolidation. The recorded easement (resulting from a 1957 condemnation) already grants access, and no agreement with an adjoining owner is required for erasing a lot line. The site plan approval, not the subdivision approval, is the proper venue to address shared access concerns.
  • Planning Commission’s Position (Scott Waxter):
    • The Planning Commission argued that the appeal raises only two narrow legal questions: (a) whether a sign was required on Grove Boulevard, and (b) whether a 507D agreement was required. The Commission defended its decision, stating that the signs were properly posted on the BOE’s only street frontage (Carroll Parkway) and that Grove Boulevard is a private right-of-way, not a public street, so no sign was needed there. Even if the appellant’s interpretation were accepted, the BOE did post a sign for the Carroll Parkway frontage, satisfying Section 301. Regarding 507D, the Commission argued the section is meant for subdivisions that divide land and affect common access among future owners, not for consolidations or for binding non‑owners like Carroll Parkway LLC. The site plan, which addresses bus and construction traffic, is the appropriate vehicle for access concerns.
    • Mr. Waxter also noted that the ZBA’s review is limited to the record; the board is not to re‑weigh facts but to determine legal error. He urged deference to the Planning Commission’s reasonable interpretation of the LMC.

Key Outcomes

• After deliberation, the ZBA members expressed a straw poll consensus to deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission’s decision.
• Members agreed that the signage requirements were substantially met and that the BOE acted diligently to maintain signs. The board found that a sign on Grove Boulevard was not required because it is a private road, and even if it were a public street, the BOE had posted a sign on its Carroll Parkway frontage as required.
• The board concluded that Section 507D does not apply to a consolidation plat and that the issue of shared access and usage of Grove Boulevard should be addressed at the site plan stage, not the subdivision/consolidation stage.
• The formal written decision with findings will be drafted and presented for adoption at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on April 28, 2015.