Frederick Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Approves Variance on September 24, 2019
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Frederick Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Summary – September 24, 2019
The Frederick Zoning Board of Appeals met on September 24, 2019, at 7:00 PM in City Hall to conduct routine business, hear a variance request, and address housekeeping matters. The board approved the July 23, 2019 meeting minutes, considered one new variance case (ZBA19-655V), and deferred officer elections to the next meeting. The only substantive action was the approval of a variance for a screened-in patio at 2606 Monocacy Ford Road.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of July 23, 2019 Minutes: The board unanimously approved the minutes of the July 23, 2019 meeting as written, with a motion by Mr. Sisson and no objections.
Public Comments & Testimony
- No general public comments were made under the general public comment period, as no residents were present.
- Applicant Testimony (Mr. Gusia): The applicant, Mr. Gusia, representing the homeowner, spoke about the need for the variance. He explained that the screened porch would mitigate severe mosquito issues due to the property's proximity to the river, mentioning health concerns from equine encephalitis and Zika. He argued the enclosure is simply a screening addition under an existing deck and that the current building restriction line (BRL) cuts under the deck, making the yard awkward. He also noted that the deck was fully permitted.
Discussion Items
- ZBA19-655V, Variance, 2606 Monocacy Ford Road: The applicant requested a 4-foot variance from the required 10-foot rear setback to construct a screened-in patio 6 feet from the rear property line. The property is in a Planned Development (PD) under the 1986 zoning ordinance. Staff (Gabrielle Collard) presented findings recommending denial, citing that the property did not exhibit exceptional conditions peculiar to the lot, and granting would confer a special privilege. Board members discussed whether the lot's angular rear property line, the building restriction line crossing the deck, and proximity to the river (including the regulatory floodplain) constituted unique conditions. Mr. Sisson argued the BRL crossing the property's deck was unique compared to other lots. The board also considered the applicant's willingness to limit the enclosure to screening only. The motion to deny failed for lack of a second, and a motion to approve passed 3-0 with the condition that the enclosure be screen-only with no opaque surfaces.
Key Outcomes
- Variance Approved (ZBA19-655V): The board voted 3-0 (Mr. Sisson, Mr. Arno, Mr. Butcher) to approve the variance with the stipulation that the enclosure be screening and not opaque. Findings included that conditions peculiar to the property (shape, BRL crossing, river location) cause an undue hardship, and approval would not injure the neighborhood. The variance permits the screened patio to extend 6 feet from the rear property line, 4 feet into the required rear setback.
- Officer Elections Deferred: The board postponed the election of officers to the next meeting, as not all members were present.
Other Business
- Zoning determinations completed for seven properties were noted in the agenda but no action was taken.
- The board made an announcement encouraging public participation in the upcoming comprehensive plan update.
Meeting Transcript
People are speaking and then you come back, you just reach restate your name for the record. Um the reason for that is all the proceedings in tonight are being recorded because anybody who is a grieved by a decision of the zoning board of appeals has a right to appeal our decision to circuit court. And so when the judge is reviewing the evidence and listening back um to the audio tape and all that kind of good stuff helps clarify who happens to be speaking at any one time and who they write, who they are and who they happen to maybe be representing. So any questions about that? No. If any come up as we go along, feel free to ask. Um we're a pretty um uh easygoing bunch uh here, so don't hesitate if you've got a question to let us know. Um as I mentioned, uh, we've got a couple of housekeeping uh matters on our agenda to go through first, and then we'll get on to tonight's cases. Um for those following along on our agenda that takes us through our call to order and our announcements. Item number two on our agenda is general public comment regarding zoning in the city of Frederick. Uh, this opportunity for anybody who's a resident of the city to come in and give us information about zoning in general. Um rarely happens, and seeing that we don't have anybody tonight, and I see that our applicants are shaking their heads no. Um I do not think we have any general public comment. So we will move on to item number three, which is review and approval of the July 23rd, 2019 meeting minutes. Members of the board, you have those minutes in your packets, and I will entertain a motion. Motion to approve the minutes. We have a motion for approval from Mr. Sisson. Do we have a second? Do we have any discussion of the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? No, then the meeting minutes are approved as written. Brings us to item number four on the agenda. That is the swearing in of witnesses, because we're giving testimony um which could be appealed. Um, all of anybody who's planning on speaking tonight um will have kind of a Perry Mason style swearing in. Um so anybody who is planning on offering testimony tonight, if you could raise your hand, uh your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the responses given and statements made in this hearing before the zoning board of appeals will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? If so, answer I do. Thank you all. That brings us to item number five, which are continuances. We have no continuances before us. Item number six is old business, we have no old business on the agenda. That moves us to item number seven, new business. We have case CBA 1965 v as in Victor for a variance at 2606 Minochasie Ford Road. Um I see that we have the applicants with us tonight. Ms. Kelly, do we have the staff report? Yes. Um, I'd like to go ahead and enter the staff report into the record. Um the applicant is requesting a four-foot variance to the required ten-foot setback to allow a screened-in patio underneath an existing deck. Um, in accordance with section 606 table 606-1, an unenclosed deck may encroach up to one half of the required yard rear yard distance. However, enclosed porches and additions must meet setback requirements. A small corner of the existing deck is within the um the six-foot uh setback. Um the CBA may grant variances from certain provisions of the code when all conditions set forth in section 313 C are met. Um, the first criteria is the variance is not contrary to the public interest. Um while the applicant has gained approval from the homeowners association for the enclosure, in order for the city to approve the construction, it must be in compliance with all applicable zoning standards. Um in considering the request, the ZBA must consider the role of setback standards in promoting the public interest. Setbacks as defined in the LMC are the minimum distance required between a property line and a principal structure, which are intended to promote adequate light, air safety, and access between neighboring properties. The encroachment into the rear yard will not create an adverse impact on adjoining properties as the rear, as the area to the rear of the property is wooded with no homes, and the townhome on the property is an end unit.
openpublica.com