BOARD OF APPEALS October 19, 2016 AGENDA DOCKET NO. AP2016-039: An appeal made by Oscar Hall, Jr. for an appeal from the Planning Commission s denial of a one lot subdivision for a proposed lot without public road frontage on property owned by the Appellant and located at 6777 Dam No. 4 Road, Sharpsburg, zoned Environmental Conservation GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS DOCKET NO. AP2016-040: An appeal made by Western Hagerstown Industrial Lane DC LLC for a variance from minimum 5% landscaped area to 3% and relief from required design requirements of Section 22.12(f)8i-v on property owned by IIT Hagerstown Industrial Lane DC and located at 16604 Industrial Lane, Williamsport, zoned Planned Industrial GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS ****************************************************************************** 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 October 10, 2016. 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. Matt Harsh, Chairman Board of Appeals
BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND Oscar Hall, Jr. Applicant Appeal No. AP2016-039 OPINION This action is an appeal from the Planning Commission s denial of a one-lot subdivision for a proposed lot without public road frontage. The subject property is located at 6777 Dam No. 4 Road, Sharpsburg, Maryland; is owned by the Applicant; and is zoned Environmental Conservation. The Board held a public hearing on the matter on October 19, 2016. Opposition was presented to this request. 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 proposes subdivision of a six-acre lot, leaving 24 acres of remaining lands. 2. The lot will be a dwelling lot for the applicant s son and daughter-in-law. 3. Access to the lot will be via a deeded right-of-way over the remaining lands to Dam No. 4 Road. 4. The access will occur over an existing lane that serves the applicant s residence and applicant s daughter s residence (on a lot created by AP2007-097). 5. The parent parcel is an irregularly shaped panhandle lot. 6. It connects to Dam No. 4 Road via a 50 -wide panhandle and then opens up and widens as it extends towards the C&O Canal. 7. The applicant has no plans for further subdivision. 8. There will be a family member only restriction on the new lot. 9. Don Smith testified in opposition to the appeal. He noted that the road has heavy boat and vehicle traffic and curves and stated that he wanted the land to remain a habitat 1
for wildlife. Rationale Section 405.11.B of the Subdivision Ordinance for Washington County, Maryland, states, in pertinent part, that Every lot shall abut a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet, and shall have access to a road or street that has been dedicated to public use and accepted for public maintenance... Certain exceptions are allowed for transfers to immediate family members of the developer under certain conditions. See 405.11.B.1. When extraordinary hardships may result from strict compliance with these regulations, or that existing topographic conditions or irregular shape of the property warrants a variance from these regulations, the Board may vary the regulations so that substantial justice may be done and the public interest secured; provided that such variation will not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of these regulations. 107. The facts of this case make such a variation appropriate. The use of the property for residential purposes is permitted in the Environmental Conservation zone. This will be a large lot in a rural area. Further development is not anticipated. The lot will share a drive serving the applicant s and the applicant s daughter s dwellings. There is no way for the applicant to meet the requirements of the Ordinance because the entire 30-acre parcel is a panhandle lot. No probative evidence was presented to show that the allowance of this one-lot subdivision would have any detrimental effect on the public health, safety, or welfare. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby GRANTED WITH A CONDITION by a vote of 5 0. Condition 1. Prior to final subdivision approval, the Applicant shall address satisfactorily any issues concerning emergency vehicle access to the property. Date Issued: November 19, 2016 BOARD OF APPEALS By: Neal Glessner, Vice Chair 2
BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND Western Hagerstown Industrial Lane DC LLC Applicant Appeal No. AP2016-040 OPINION This action is a request for a variance from the minimum required landscaped area of 5% to 3% and relief from the required design requirements of 22.12(f)8i-v. The subject property is located at 16605 Industrial Lane, Williamsport, Maryland; is owned by the Applicant; and is zoned Planned Industrial. The Board held a public hearing on the matter on October 19, 2016. 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 subject property is an industrial site formerly used by Lenox and Rustoleum. 2. The applicant purchased the subject property in 2011 and is renovating the site. 3. The renovations include a redesign of the parking and travel areas of the site and repaving. 4. The Ordinance requires that parking facilities over 10,000 sq. ft. have landscaped parking islands aggregating to 5% of the area. 5. The site was developed in the mid-1980s. 6. Prior to the applicant s purchase of the property, some landscape islands were removed, lowering the percentage of landscaping to 3%. 7. The applicant wants to maintain the 3% landscaping but seeks a variance from the 5% standard for the following reasons: (a) The lack of islands makes it easier for trucks to maneuver when serving the site; and (b) The lack of islands makes snow removal easier and lowers maintenance and upkeep costs (as plows hit the islands during snow removal). 1
8. The reduction amounts to a 1,240 sq. ft. reduction in island area. 9. J.R. and Carol Mellott, the most-affected neighbors, reside next door and have no objection to the variance for the landscaping islands. 10. They raised concerns regarding truck travel patterns particularly over the loop road and dust generated therefrom. 11. The applicant indicated that it would make accommodations to address their concerns, including landscape buffering and paving of the loop or access road. 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 variances 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). The Ordinance requires that 5% of a parking area over 10,000 sq. ft. have landscaped areas. Sometime prior to the applicant s acquisition of the property, the landscaping islands were reduced to 3% of the area. For operational reasons, including truck maneuverability and snow removal, the applicant seeks the variance to remain at the 3% level. This appears unobjectionable. The use is permitted and strict compliance would increase costs to the applicant over the life of the site. There was no evidence that the reduction in the landscaping area created any detrimental effects. Rather, the evidence was that the reduction would facilitate travel patterns and snow removal. The most-affected neighbors have no objection to the reduction. A lesser variation is impracticable, as the applicant is merely asking for permission to maintain the status quo of the landscaping percentage. For all of the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the grant of the requested relief observes the spirt of the Ordinance and secures public safety and welfare. We are mindful of the Mellott s concerns, however, and think that the applicant s accommodation of them 1 When the terms unnecessary hardship (or one of its synonyms) and practical difficulties are framed in the disjunctive ( or ), Maryland courts generally have applied the more restrictive hardship standard to use variances, while applying the less restrictive practical difficulties standard to area variances because use variances are viewed as more drastic departures from zoning requirements. Belvoir Farms Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. North, 355 Md. 259, 276 n.10 (1999) (citations omitted). 2
would materially enhance the compatibility between neighboring industrial and residential uses. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS by a vote of 5 0. Conditions 1. The applicant will establish a buffer along the rear property line. 2. The applicant will pave the loop or access road. Date Issued: November 19, 2016 BOARD OF APPEALS By: Neal Glessner, Vice Chair 3