Good evening, everybody.

Welcome to the February 28th, 2017 meeting of the City of Frederick Zoning Board of Appeals.

We have a short agenda before us tonight.

And we will probably cut through it pretty quick.

But if we can, members, I think you have the agenda uh seated before you.

Um our first item of business following our call to order is general public comment.

If we have any general public comment regarding zoning in the city of Frederick.

Seeing none, we will move on to review and approval of the minutes from the January 24th, 2017 minute meeting.

Uh members, you have those minutes before you, and I will entertain a motion.

Mr.

Chair, I move for the approval of the January 24th minutes as presented.

We've motioned for approval from Mr.

Butcher.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Mr.

Arno, do we have any further discussion of the motion?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstention?

The minutes are approved as written.

Swearing is the witnesses.

Do we have anybody tonight who's planning to testify before the zoning board of appeals?

Seeing that we have no witnesses at this time, we will move on.

Uh under old business, uh none and under new business are one item on the agenda tonight.

Uh ZBA 16-1009AA, an administrative appeal.

Caitlin properties, uh, adequate public facilities ordinance.

Um if you recall, and for the benefit of anybody at home, uh we heard testimony uh in the this uh de novo appeal uh here at last month's meeting.

Uh we discussed the matter.

We had a consensus uh generally among the board.

Uh Mr.

Waxter, who is the assistant city attorney, uh has drafted uh a conclusion for us to review tonight that uh he believes is in line with that consensus, and that matter is before us now.

Uh I myself uh just to open up uh the discussion on the matter uh have uh read and reviewed it, and other than some very, very punctuation uh uh suggestions, uh I felt that the conclusion represented our discussion from the last meeting.

The chair, do you feel that it's necessary to go to review the edits that um we were reviewing?

Um we certainly can.

Um I guess the easiest way might be because we sort of wrote them down on Jim's paper.

I found a typo where I added an extra word when on the second page.

So Jim has sort of circled all those.

I've already made the changes to the document.

Um presumed to to try to you know fix that, and I apologize that it came at a late hour after you'd already been uh distributed.

But we can do that.

I have the the third page is clean, the decision in order pages clean I have for Mr.

Um for the chairman to sign.

Uh you can pass along, you can say what they were in front of you is talking about.

I only had a couple suggestions, and here I'll I'll go through them, but that's a good idea, Mr.

Butcher.

Yeah, no, let's let's go ahead and do that, especially since uh we've got folks uh who might have some additional suggestions as we go through.

Um page one under the section issues uh in the second sentence.

The applicant claims that a provisional CAPF dash SCH can be issued if after an initial failure, comma.

Uh and I suggested that we amend that to say the applicant claims that a provisional CAPF-SCH can be issued, comma, if after after if after an initial failure, comma, the developer elects or predetermines.

So in addition, I'll to set off that interrupter clause.

And then on page two, first, second, third paragraph.

Uh second sentence.

Um there was an additional when in this sentence.

So uh the draft read uh dictate when the director when is permitted.

And so uh deletion of that uh second when then following the following sentence uh criteria for the issuance of a final approvisional CPF is contained in it uh uh read and in an APFO section 412, and so uh removal of that, just so it is the APFO section 412.

And then lastly, in the following paragraph, which is one, two, three, four, uh sentence one, sentence two, sentence three, um, which starts with the applicant's analysis of section four twelve, b four, and five, which reasons that after an initial failure of the school's tests, the applicant may make an election that it will wait three years and not submit a mitigation and therefore immediately be eligible to receive a provisional CAPF dash SCH is not supported by the APFO.

Um I just felt that that sentence was a little was a little long uh and difficult to parse.

So what I suggested is the applicant's analysis of section 412 B four and five, comma, which reasons that after an initial failure of the school's test, the applicant may make an election that it'll wait three years and not submit a mitigation and therefore be eligible to receive a provisional CP C APF dash SCH, comma is not supported by the APFO.