BOARD OF APPEALS January 10, 2018 AGENDA

Similar documents
BOARD OF APPEALS April 11, County Administration Building, 100 W. Washington St., Meeting Room 2000, Hagerstown, at 7:00 p.m.

BOARD OF APPEALS. October 19, 2016 AGENDA

BOARD OF APPEALS. September 21, 2016 AGENDA

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. April 4, LOCATION: Washington County Court House, Court Room 1, 24 Summit Avenue, Hagerstown 7:00 p.m.

BOARD OF APPEALS. January 6, 2016 AGENDA

(b) A concurring vote of a majority of the membership of the Zoning Board of Appeals shall be necessary to constitute board action.

CITY OF NORTH RIDGEVILLE BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS Procedure for filing an Appeal, Conditional Use, Variances or Home Occupation Approvals

APPLICATION NUMBER A REQUEST FOR

ARTICLE 15 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE AND ENFORCEMENT

BOROUGH OF INTERLAKEN MINUTES- PLANNING BOARD JANUARY 22, :30 P.M. BOROUGH HALL, 100 GRASSMERE AVENUE

Board of Adjustment. November 19, 2013 immediately following the Planning Board meeting at 7:00pm Council Chambers, 201 S Main St.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

EDGEWATER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION NO. BOA

A. The Board of Adjustment members and appointment procedure.


Department of Planning and Development

June 20, MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. James Hall

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA

APPLICATION NUMBER 5595/2945 A REQUEST FOR

ROBERT W. WOJCIK AND DEBORAH A. WOJCIK

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS CASE NUMBER V RONALD M. KLINE AND RACHEL A. KLINE SECOND ASSESSMENT DISTRICT

H. CURTISS MARTIN, ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE ELIZABETH A. McCLANAHAN JUNE 6, 2013 CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, ET AL.

ROCKY RIVER BOARD OF ZONING & BUILDING APPEALS

o for a variance as stated on attached Form 3

JAMES A. COON LOCAL GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL SERIES. Guidelines for Applicants To the Zoning Board of Appeals

MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE OWOSSO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF OWOSSO MAY 16, 2017 AT 9:30 A.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS

WILLIAM M. HUGEL AND ANNAMARIE HUGEL

GEORGE DAVID FULLER AND DAWN LOUSIE FULLER

VARIANCE STAFF REPORT

ARTICLE XIV ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

ORDINANCE NO Ordinance No Page 1 of 7. Language to be added is underlined. Language to be deleted is struck through.

ROCKY RIVER BOARD OF ZONING & BUILDING APPEALS

Variance Application And Notice of Appeal To The Board of Adjustment

TOWN OF ST. GERMAIN P. O. BOX 7 ST. GERMAIN, WI 54558

TOWN OF NAPLES NAPLES MINIMUM LOT SIZE ORDINANCE. Naples Lot Size Ordinance for the Town of Naples, Maine Attested by Town Clerk

209/213 South Seventh Street Substandard Lot Variance

CHAPTER XXIII BOARD OF APPEALS SECTION MEMBERS, PER DIEM EXPENSES AND REMOVAL.

Present: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons and Agee, JJ., and Russell, S.J.

Article 14: Nonconformities

CASE # JSE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SPECIAL EXCEPTION STAFF CONTACT: MIKE TERTINGER

CHAPTER 14: NONCONFORMITIES

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING APPROVAL UNDER CITY ORDINANCE NO. O-02-82, DATED JANUARY 18, 1982, AS AMENDED. Address

CHARLOTTE CODE CHAPTER 5: APPEALS AND VARIANCES

ARTICLE VIII SIGN REGULATIONS

RUSSELL PROPERTIES, LLC

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

The applicant is proposing the following modifications of the North Park Isles Community Unit district:

Item No Halifax and West Community Council May 17, 2016

Chapter SIGN REGULATIONS Statement of purpose Definitions. Page 1. Sections:

City of Monona 5211 Schluter Road Monona, WI Phone: (608) Fax: (608)

TOWNSHIP OF WORCESTER MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORDINANCE NO

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Quality Services for a Quality Community

City Attorney's Synopsis

ORDINANCE NO. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

ARTICLE 2. ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 20 AUTHORITY OF REVIEWING/DECISION MAKING BODIES AND OFFICIALS Sections: 20.1 Board of County Commissioners.

1. Appellant(s)/Owner(s) Name: 2. Address: Phone #:

Applications and Procedures City of St. Petersburg City Code Chapter 16, Land Development Regulations

BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT STAFF REPORT Date: December 5, 2016

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PROVIDING FOR LAND USE PLANNING AND ZONING REGULATIONS AND RELATED FUNCTIONS.

Act upon building, construction and use applications which are under the jurisdiction of the Code Enforcement Officer.

Upon motion by, seconded by, the following. Ordinance was duly enacted, voting in favor of enactment, voting against enactment.

RESOLUTION OF MEMORIALIZATION OF THE LAND USE BOARD THE BOROUGH OF HARVEY CEDARS COUNTY OF OCEAN AND STATE OF NEW JERSEY DOCKET NO.

-- Rethinking Non-Conformities. David A. Theriaque, Esquire

BOROUGH OF MOUNT JOY ZONING HEARING BOARD APPLICATION PROCEDURES

Ordinance No. 24 of 2018 died due to a lack of a motion to adopt. Reintroduced as Ordinance No. 34 of Egg Harbor Township. Ordinance No.

UPPER CHICHESTER TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD P.O. BOX 2187 UPPER CHICHESTER, PA (610)

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ARTICLE I Enactment & Application. ARTICLE III Boundary Regulations. ARTICLE IV Manufactured Housing Requirements. ARTICLE V Nonconforming Uses

ORDINANCE NO

Chairperson Schafer; Vice-Chair Berndt; Members: Napier, Oen and Stearn

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION

CITY OF STRONGSVILLE BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING CODE APPEALS Foltz Parkway, Strongsville, Ohio 44149

CITY OF KENT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING & BUSINESS MEETING April 16, Mr. Paino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Variance Application Checklist

THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF DOUGLAS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Administrative Procedures

CITY OF GRAHAM BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT February 19, 2013

APPLICATION NUMBER A REQUEST FOR

ARTICLE 3. ZONING AND PERMITTING PROCEDURES

CHAPTER ADMINISTRATION 1

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

City of Forest Acres South Carolina Zoning Board of Appeals Application. Receipt Number:

BOROUGH OF FOLSOM PLANNING/ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES (Revised) July 18, 2012

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO

GLEN ROCK ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of the June 14, 2018 Meeting 7:30 PM

Appanoose County Zoning Ordinance Index to Changes

: FENCE STANDARDS:

CITY OF EASTPOINTE BUILDING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR FENCE PERMIT

CITY OF MENTOR APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Board of Building and Zoning Appeals

Article V - Zoning Hearing Board

TOWNSHIP OF CLARK Ordinance No. Adopted. Introduced: January 20, 2015 Public Hearing: February 17, Motion: O Connor Motion:

- CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 14 - PLANNING ARTICLE II. - RESIDENTIAL FENCE REGULATIONS

ARTICLE THIRTEEN: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

Now, therefore be it and it is hereby ordained chapter 152 Outdoor Advertising shall read as follows:

TOWN OF DORCHESTER. A. The entire Town of Dorchester is determined to be a Rural District.

Agenda Item F.1 PUBLIC HEARING Meeting Date: February 3, 2015

ARTICLE 17 SIGNS AND AWNINGS REGULATIONS

Indio, CA Code of Ordinances CHAPTER 37: REGULATION OF SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS

PETITION FOR PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW. Case Number P&Z - - Development Name/Address. INFORMATION (Office Only) INDEX. Date of Submission

MEETING OF THE FEBRUARY 25, 2014 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING NO. 2 PAGE NO. 1

Transcription:

January 10, 2018 AGENDA DOCKET NO. AP2017-051: An appeal made by St. Marks Episcopal Church for a variance from 25 ft. from street right of way to 10 ft. for placement of a freestanding sign on property owned by the Appellant and located at 18311 Lappans Road, Boonsboro, zoned Rural Village - GRANTED DOCKET NO. AP2017-052: An appeal made by Donald & Joanne Bingaman for a variance from the modified minimum required side yard setback of 10 ft. to 5 ft. for the construction of a duplex on property owned by the Appellant and located at 436 South Artizan Street, Williamsport, zoned Residential Transition - GRANTED ****************************************************************************** Pursuant to the Maryland Open Meetings Law, notice is hereby given that the deliberations of the Board of Zoning Appeals are open to the public. Furthermore, the Board, at its discretion, may render a decision as to some or all of the cases at the hearing described above or at a subsequent hearing, the date and time of which will be announced prior to the conclusion of the public hearing. Individuals requiring special accommodations are requested to contact Kathy Kroboth at 240-313-2469 Voice, 240-313-2130 Voice/TDD to make arrangements no later than January 1, 2018. Any person desiring a stenographic transcript shall be responsible for supplying a competent stenographer. The Board of Appeals reserves the right to vary the order in which the cases are called. Please take note of the Amended Rules of Procedure (Adopted July 5, 2006), Public Hearing, Section 4(d) which states: Applicants shall have ten (10) minutes in which to present their request and may, upon request to and permission of the Board, receive an additional twenty (20) minutes for their presentation. Following the Applicant s case in chief, other individuals may receive three (3) minutes to testify, except in the circumstance where an individual is representing a group, in which case said individual shall be given eight (8) minutes to testify. Those Applicants requesting the additional twenty (20) minutes shall have their case automatically moved to the end of the docket. For extraordinary cause, the Board may extend any time period set forth herein, or otherwise modify or suspend these Rules, to uphold the spirit of the Ordinance and to do substantial justice. Neal Glessner, Chairman Board of Zoning Appeals

BEFORE THE FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND St. Mark s Episcopal Church Applicant Appeal No. AP2017-051 OPINION This appeal is a request for a variance from the minimum 25 setback from the street right-of-way to 10 for the placement of a freestanding sign. The subject property is located at 18311 Lappans Road, Boonsboro, Maryland; is owned by the Applicant; and is zoned Rural Village. The Board held a public hearing on the matter on January 10, 2018. Findings of Fact Based upon the testimony given, all information and evidence presented, and upon a study of the specific property involved and the neighborhood in which it is located, the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Applicant seeks a variance to place a freestanding sign within the 25 setback from the street right-of-way. 2. Strict compliance with the setback would result in the sign being in the church s driveway and would obstruct the visibility of the sign from passing motorists. 3. The sign will be 6 6 in area. 4. The proposed placement will not obstruct the visibility of motorists entering or exiting the subject property. 5. The sign will be externally illuminated by floodlights. 6. No one is opposed to this request. Rationale This Board has authority to grant a variance upon a showing of practical difficulty or undue hardship. 1 25.2(c) and 25.56. Practical Difficulty may be found by the Board when: (1) strict compliance would unreasonably prevent the use of the property for a 1

permitted purpose or render conformance unnecessarily burdensome; and (2) denying the variance would do substantial injustice to the applicant and a lesser relaxation than that applied for would not give substantial relief; and (3) granting the variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and secure public safety and welfare. 25.56(A). This request for variance relief is reasonable. The need for variance relief is occasioned by the size and shape of the lot and the imposition of the street right-of-way. Strict compliance would result in the sign being erected in the middle of the existing driveway, with scant visibility to passing motorists. The proposed location maximizes the sign s visibility while not obstructing the visibility of motorists entering and exiting the church property. The sign will be externally illuminated and of a size and shape consistent with applicable standards. No one testified in opposition to this request. We conclude that the grant of this request observes the spirit of the Ordinance and secures the public safety and welfare for the foregoing reasons. Accordingly, this request for a variance is hereby GRANTED by a vote of 5 0. Date Issued: February 9, 2018 By: Neal R. Glessner, Chair 2

BEFORE THE FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND Donald & Joanne Bingaman Applicants Appeal No. AP2017-052 OPINION This appeal is a request for a variance from the modified minimum 10 side yard setback to 5 for the construction of a duplex. The subject property is located at 436 S. Artizan Street, Williamsport, Maryland; is owned by the Applicants; and is zoned Residential Transition. The Board held a public hearing on the matter on January 10, 2018. Findings of Fact Based upon the testimony given, all information and evidence presented, and upon a study of the specific property involved and the neighborhood in which it is located, the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Applicants seek a variance to construct a duplex on the subject property. 2. A dwelling that has been on the property since the 1950s was removed last year due to deterioration. 3. The Applicants purchased the property from Ms. Bingaman s grandparents. 4. Her grandmother will reside in one side of the duplex and the other side will be a rental unit. 5. The duplex units will be three-bedroom units. 6. Duplexes need a 20,000 sq. ft. lot and 100 lot width. 7. The subject property is 9,775 sq. ft. and is 50 in width. 8. The duplex will be 40 in width, each side being 20 wide. 9. Surrounding lots are of similar size and shape and were created in the 1950s prior to the adoption of zoning in the County. 1

10. The neighbor most-impacted by the proposed encroachment has no objection to this request. 11. No one testified in opposition to this request. Rationale This Board has authority to grant a variance upon a showing of practical difficulty or undue hardship. 1 25.2(c) and 25.56. Practical Difficulty may be found by the Board when: (1) strict compliance would unreasonably prevent the use of the property for a permitted purpose or render conformance unnecessarily burdensome; and (2) denying the variance would do substantial injustice to the applicant and a lesser relaxation than that applied for would not give substantial relief; and (3) granting the variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and secure public safety and welfare. 25.56(A). This request for variance relief is reasonable. The proposed duplex is a principally permitted use in this zone. The need for variance relief is occasioned by the size and shape of the lot, which was created before the enactment of zoning. The duplex is of reasonable size, and strict compliance would result in the construction of less desirable units or units impracticable for habitability. A lesser relaxation is impracticable for the same reason. The encroachment is consented to by the most-affected neighbor, and the other lots in the immediate neighborhood are of similar size to this lot. No opposition was presented to this request. Therefore, we conclude that the grant of this request observes the spirit of the Ordinance and secures the public safety and welfare. Accordingly, this request for a variance is hereby GRANTED by a vote of 5 0. Date Issued: February 9, 2018 By: Neal R. Glessner, Chair 2