DOCKET NO. AP

Transcription

1 Permits & Inspections Board of Zoning Appeals Agenda January 2, click on the docket no. or scroll down to see the opinion DOCKET NO. AP : An appeal made by Nick Patel/GIGA Inc. DBA Dunkin Donuts for a variance from required 44 parking spaces to 22 spaces for a proposed Dunkin Donuts with drive-thru on property owned by Graystone Tower Bank and located at Maugans Avenue, Hagerstown, MD, zoned Highway Interchange. GRANTED 4-0 DOCKET NO. AP : An appeal made by the Washington County Division of Public Works for a variance from minimum 25 ft. setback from street right-of-way to minus 5 ft. for the placement of an externally lit freestanding identification sign for the Hagerstown Regional Airport and tenants on property owned by the Washington County Commissioner and located at Henson Boulevard, Hagerstown, MD, zoned Airport. GRANTED 4-0

2 BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND GIGA Inc. dba Dunkin Donuts Appellant Appeal No. AP OPINION This action is an appeal for a variance from the required 44 parking spaces to 22 spaces for a proposed Dunkin Donuts with a drive through. The subject property is known as Maugans Avenue, Hagerstown, Maryland, is owned by the Graystone Tower Bank, and is zoned Highway Interchange. A public hearing was held before the Board on January 2, Findings of Fact The following findings of fact are made by the Board, based upon the testimony given and all data and other evidence presented, and upon a study of the specific property involved, as well as the neighborhood: 1. The Appellant is a franchisee of Dunkin Donuts and plans to open a restaurant at the subject property. 2. The property was formerly used as a bank and is improved with a 3,300 sq. ft. building. 3. The proposed use of the property will not require any changes to the site layout except for the removal of one of the two existing drivethrough aisles. 4. Eighteen parking spaces now serve the building, and four additional spaces will be created. 5. Eighty percent (80%) of the building will be used for the kitchen and display areas, with only twenty percent (20%) dedicated to customer seating. 6. The seating area will serve twenty customers. 7. Strict compliance with the Ordinance would result in greater 1

3 impervious area and require more stormwater management. 8. Given the number of customers that will be served by the drivethrough, the proposed parking area will adequately serve the expected walk in customers. 9. The requested relief engendered no opposition. Rationale This Board has authority to grant a variance upon a showing by the Appellant of practical difficulty or undue hardship. Sections 25.2(c) and 25.56, Zoning Ordinance for Washington County, Maryland. 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. Section 25.56(a). The Appellant has met its burden for this variance. The proposed use is a permitted and laudable adaptive reuse of the property. Strict compliance would prevent this use due to the property s size and, for the same reason, a lesser variance is impracticable. Only 20% of the building will be used for customer seating, with the majority of the building being kitchen and display areas. Moreover, it is common knowledge that much of a Dunkin Donuts business consists of drive through customers, thus negating the need for dedicated parking spaces, as many customers never exit their vehicles. No evidence was presented that the proposed use was incompatible with the neighborhood; disruptive of neighbors quiet enjoyment of their properties; detrimental to surrounding property values; generative of excessive odors, dust, gas, smoke, fumes, vibrations, or glare; generative of traffic that would exceed the capacity of existing infrastructure; or that the proposal was an inappropriate use of land or structure. No opposition was presented to this request. Accordingly, as no lesser alternative to this variance exists, the grant of this request advances 2

4 the spirit and purpose of the Ordinance. Based upon all of the testimony and evidence presented, this Board finds that the subject request does not adversely affect the public health, safety, security, morals, or general welfare, nor does it result in dangerous traffic conditions, or jeopardize the life and property of neighborhood residents. Therefore, for the reasons set forth herein, this appeal is hereby GRANTED by a vote of 4 0. Date Issued: February 1, 2013 BOARD OF APPEALS By: Matt Harsh, Chair 3

5 BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Appellant Appeal No. AP OPINION This action is an appeal for a variance from the minimum 25 setback from the street right of way to 5 for the placement of an externally lit freestanding identification sign for the Hagerstown Regional Airport and Aviation Technology Park. The subject property is known as Henson Boulevard, Hagerstown, Maryland, is owned by the Appellant, and is zoned Airport. A public hearing was held before the Board on January 2, Findings of Fact The following findings of fact are made by the Board, based upon the testimony given and all data and other evidence presented, and upon a study of the specific property involved, as well as the neighborhood: 1. The Appellant plans to erect an on premise sign identifying the Hagerstown Regional Airport, Aviation Technology Park, and businesses located therein at the corner of Henson Boulevard and Pennsylvania Avenue. 2. Strict compliance with the Ordinance standards would result in the sign being set too far back to be visible to passing motorists travelling along Pennsylvania Avenue. A pole would also obstruct its visibility. 3. The right of way is larger than expected due to plans for an acceleration lane that was never built and is not expected to be built in the future. 4. The proposed placement does not cause any sight distance problems. 5. The State Highway Administration has no objection to the placement of the sign as proposed. 1

6 6. No one presented any opposition to the requested relief. Rationale This Board has authority to grant a variance upon a showing by the Appellant of practical difficulty or undue hardship. Sections 25.2(c) and 25.56, Zoning Ordinance for Washington County, Maryland. 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. Section 25.56(a). The Appellant is entitled to this variance. The proposed use is a permitted use, one that identifies uses occurring at the Airport and in the business park. Strict compliance would prevent this use, because the sign would be obscured from passing motorists, thus negating its identification purpose. For the same reason, a lesser variance is impracticable. No sight distance impediments are created as a result of the requested relief, and the County and the State Highway Administration have no objection to the requested relief. Clearly identifying business locations increases traffic safety by reducing the need for motorists to slow down and hunt for a business, which may, in turn, impede the flow of traffic and increase the chance for rear end collisions. As such, the grant of this request advances the spirit and purpose of the Ordinance and secures the public s safety and welfare. No evidence was presented that the proposed use was incompatible with the neighborhood; disruptive of neighbors quiet enjoyment of their properties; detrimental to surrounding property values; generative of excessive odors, dust, gas, smoke, fumes, vibrations, or glare; generative of traffic that would exceed the capacity of existing infrastructure; or that the proposal was an inappropriate use of land or structure. Based upon all of the testimony and evidence presented, this Board 2

7 finds that the subject request does not adversely affect the public health, safety, security, morals, or general welfare, nor does it result in dangerous traffic conditions, or jeopardize the life and property of neighborhood residents. Therefore, for the reasons set forth herein, this appeal is hereby GRANTED by a vote of 4 0. Date Issued: February 1, 2013 BOARD OF APPEALS By: Matt Harsh, Chair 3