Good evening, everybody.

Welcome to the October 24th, 2023 meeting of the City of Frederick Zoning Board of Appeals.

Before we get started on tonight's business, I usually like just to give a little bit of background on the zoning board of appeals and kind of go over what our procedures are going to be for tonight and see if there's any questions along those lines.

So it's the responsibility of the zoning board of appeals to authorize on appeal specific cases for a variance from the terms of the city's zoning regulations to hear and decide special exceptions to terms of the zoning regulations and to hear and decide appeals of a grieved party where it's alleged there's been an error and an order or requirement or decision made by an administrative officer by the city.

And volunteers were appointed by the mayor, and our appointments are confirmed by the Board of Alderman.

And as you see, we've got five folks with us this evening.

And next to her is Ms.

Gabrielle Collard, and she is the division manager of current planning or the current manager of divisional planning.

One or the other.

And then to my far left and everybody's far right is uh Miss Jennifer Vandegreek.

Um she's the office manager with the planning department, and in addition to her many, many responsibilities, she supports the ZBA in our work.

Um so um just a little bit of um uh um instruction on uh what our procedures are for tonight.

Um as we go through the agenda, I'll call the case number.

Um, if the applicant is here, and I'm assuming our applicants are here, but just give me a little wave and say that you are.

Um after uh we call the case number, I'm gonna ask for the staff report.

Um the staff will enter the whole report into the city record, and then um we'll go through and highlight any um particular information uh that they want to make sure is shared here at the meeting tonight.

Of course, we all have the written staff report um in our packets as well.

Um the city at um the city staff at the end of the staff report, they may make a recommendation or recommendations regarding uh the case.

That's one factor we take into our consideration, but it's uh not the only factor.

Um after hearing from the city staff, we'll ask the applicant if they would like to give a statement, give us some background information about their request, clarify anything that they feel needs to be uh clarified.

Members of the board may ask questions of the applicant at that time.

Uh following that, we will ask if there is any public comment.

Any member of the public can give um testimony regarding one of tonight's uh cases.

Um testimony, we will ask for your name and your address for the record.

Um and then follow any any public comment that we have, we'll ask the applicant if they've got any closing remarks uh that they would like to share.

And then at that point, we will close the public testimony section um of uh the particular case.

Um following that, I will call for a motion uh from the board.

Um and like I said, uh five uh members constitutes a full board, simple majority passes any motion, so three out of five votes to pass any motion that might happen to be before the board.

Any questions about tonight's procedures?

No, we're okay.

Um we're gonna have a couple of housekeeping things that we're gonna take care of uh here on tonight's uh agenda.

One of which is going to be that for anybody's planning on speaking tonight, we're gonna do like a group squaring in, like you know, uh Perry Mason style uh there for uh everybody to make sure that we check all the boxes there.

out of five votes um to pass any motion that might happen to be before the board any questions about tonight's procedures nope we're okay um we're gonna have a couple of housekeeping things that we're gonna take care of uh here on tonight's uh agenda one of which is going to be that for anybody's planning on speaking tonight we're gonna do like a group squaring in like you know uh perry mason style uh there for uh everybody um uh to make sure that we check all the boxes um there um and then um huh Perry Mason Perry Mason's making a comeback right isn't there like a new Perry Mason yeah yeah yeah right yeah you're excuse me sir yeah I'm getting up there I'm almost 76 so am I okay before we get uh started with tonight's cases if you're following on your agendas that's item number one which is our call to order and any announcements item number two is general public comment about zoning in the city of Frederick not related to tonight's case so if somebody wants to ever come and share insights into uh their opinions on zoning now's the opportunity it's a very rare occurrence but we always check uh seeing no takers um members of the board you have before you the minutes from the August 22nd 2023 meeting I will entertain a motion Mr.

Chairman this is Bob Sisson I make a motion to accept the minutes as written we have a motion for approval from Mr.

Sisson do we have a second Mrs.

Dixon Hicks I second the motion we have a second from Mr.

Hicks do we have any discussion of the motion I'll have to excuse myself I wasn't here.

Any other comments regarding the minutes all right uh all those in favor um signify by saying aye aye any opposed any abstained abstain and the minutes are uh passed from the August 22nd meeting um here's part I told everybody about the swearing in of witnesses if anybody who's planning on speaking uh tonight could raise their right hand for me um do you solemnly swear or affirm that the responses given and statements made in this hearing before the zoning board of appeal will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth if so answer I do thank you all that takes us to item number five which is continuances and we have no continuances item number six is old business we have no old business before us and then item number seven is new business uh we have case ZBA 23-918 Via Zinvictor for a variance at 330 Mona view lane is the applicant with us tonight yes um uh in accordance with eight section 864 um Mr.

Robbins do you have the staff report I do um Monica Robbins City of Frederick Planning um I'd like to start by entering the entire staff report into the record uh this is an application for a ZBA variance for approval of section 864 and a variance to section 864 to increase the signage on the site from 12 square feet to 18 square feet the property is part of the Montague campus um it houses the University of Maryland Agricultural Extension Office and is located at 330 Monta View Lane.

The campus includes 80 plus acres at the intersection of Rosemont Avenue in Montague Lane and contains land on both the north and south side of Montague.

The subject property is located in the southern portion along with the county health department a shared building that houses the Board of Elections and the Advanced Life Support the Animal Shelter which fronts on Rosemont and the University of Maryland Animal Health Laboratory which also fronts on Rosemont it was annexed by the city in 1983 and purchased by Frederick County Commissioners in 1996.

There are currently three free sanding signs on the lot along the southern side of Montague Lane one at the Health Department one at the Board of Elections Advanced Life Support Building and the current sign at the agricultural extension office.

And through the staff report I might abbreviate that the ag extension but that's what I'm referring to.

All right Section 864 of the LMC sets forth the signage regulations for the city according to table 8641 all uses in in the institutional zone are permitted 32 square feet total but section 864 V1 clarifies that a permitted use located on a parcel that individually or collectively are greater than five acres in size is permitted one freestanding sign per road frontage not to exceed 32 square feet in addition to the signage allotted in 864.

So therefore they're allowed one freestanding sign up to 64 square feet.

If this building was on a separate small lot and not part of the greater 80 acre lot they would be well under their permitted 32 square feet of signage and could enlarge the sign with nothing more than a permit.

However since the signage allotment is shared between the three buildings any increase in size at all will exceed the maximum signage allowed a ZBA application for assigned variance for the property was submitted in 2017 for the purposes of adding a single 12 square foot sign to the neighboring advanced life support building that case was dismissed by the city citing that although the health department sign and the UMD agricultural extension sign together exceeded the allowable 64 square feet the health department sign was erected prior to the adoption of the LMC and is nonconforming with regards to maximum signage regulations but it's allowed to continue in accordance with section 905 which um allows for nonconforming signs to continue.

That case was dismissed by the city, citing that although the health department sign and the UMD agricultural extension sign together exceeded the allowable 64 square feet, the health department sign was erected prior to the adoption of the LMC and is nonconforming with regards to maximum signage regulations, but it's allowed to continue in accordance with section 905, which allows for non-conforming signs to continue.

An attached building identification sign is also included in the application, but section 864 G C of the LMC states that letters or numbers that are carved into stone, concrete, or similar material, or made out of bronze, aluminum, or other permanent type construction, and made an integral part of the structure shall not be computed for purposes of sign area allotment.

So for that reason, the attached building sign is not included in the analysis, but rather just the enlargement of the freestanding sign from 12 square feet to 18.

All right.

So the City of Frederick Land Management Code allows the zoning board of appeals to grant variances from certain provisions when all of the conditions set forth in section 313 C are met.

The applicant's responses I'm going to summarize since you have those in front of you, but they're in italics, and then I will read the staff comments.

All right, number one, the first provision is that the variance is not contrary to the public interest.

The applicant responded that the variance is not only contrary to the public interest and that the resulting signage will allow for proper identification of individual Frederick County owned buildings on the Montague campus without creating negative visual impacts to the public.

Staff responds that we concur with that statement.

The building sets back off the right of way by 114 feet, making it very difficult to see from the road.

Additionally, it's located over 60 feet behind the advanced life support building, further blocking a clear view of the building.

The current 12-foot sign identifies the building as the University of Maryland extension, but doesn't provide any further information about the services provided.

The proposed sign is six square feet larger and contains detailed information about the services provided therein, including the 4-H in agriculture, family and consumer sciences, and home gardening, providing better information about services available through the ag extension is a benefit to the public.