BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OCTOBER 23, 2013 AGENDA DOCKET NO. AP2013-058: An appeal made by Sharon Knaub for a variance from the minimum 100-ft. left side yard setback from an adjacent dwelling to 70-ft. per section 4.13 for a private stable and a variance from the minimum 10-ft. left side yard setback to 6-ft. per section 7A.5(a) for the placement of a chicken coop to house two chickens on property owned by the Appellant and located at 10920 Kemper Drive, Williamsport, MD, zoned Residential Transition. Granted 5-0 DOCKET NO. AP2013-060: An appeal made by Daniel Corbin for a variance from minimum 600-ft. setback from all property lines to 200-ft. front setback, 10-ft. left side setback, 5-ft. rear setback and 320-ft. right setback to establish a recreational motor cross track and a variance from minimum 25-ft. setback from street right of way to 1-ft. for the placement of a freestanding sign on property owned by Evelyn C. Barr Trustee and located at 21036 National Pike, Boonsboro, MD, zoned Rural Business Existing. Denied 5-0
BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND SHARON KNAUB Appellant Appeal No. AP2013-058 OPINION This action is an appeal for a variance from the minimum 100 left side yard setback from an adjacent dwelling to 70 and from the minimum 10 left side yard setback to 6 for the placement of a chicken coop. The subject property is known as 10920 Kemper Drive, Williamsport, Maryland, is owned by the Appellant, and is zoned Residential Transition. A public hearing was held before the Board on October 23, 2013. 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 has two (2) pet chickens that she proposes to house in the chicken coop that is the subject of this appeal. 2. The Appellant's chickens are pet, or show, chickens. 3. The chickens were acquired in June. 4. Appellant has no plans to acquire more chickens. 5. Appellant's home was built in 1959, so the lot was created before subdivision control was instituted in the County. 6. There are no noises, odors, dusts, fumes, or other objectionable characteristics generated by the chickens. 7. The chickens are not free range; they are kept in the coop or in a fenced, covered area. 8. The coop is aesthetically attractive, clean, and protected by shade trees. 1
9. The Appellant keeps the coop meticulously clean. 10. The Appellant has secured waste and nutrient management plans. 11. A number of Appellant's neighbors testified in support of this appeal. 12. They testified that the chickens created no noise or smells that disturbed or infiltrated the neighborhood. 13. The chickens are unobtrusive. Until this appeal was advertised and the property was posted, a neighbor testifying had no idea that the chickens were kept on the property. 14. The most-affected neighbor testified that there was no objection to the presence of the chickens or the location of the coop. 15. One neighbor sent a letter objecting to the appeal. She apparently mistakenly believed that the poultry was guinea fowl rather than chickens. She wrote of concerns about health risks and noise issues dues to the poultry s presence. 16. If a lesser variance was granted, then the coop would be located closer to the objecting neighbor s property. 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). 2
The grant of these variances is appropriate. The use is a permitted accessory use of the property. Its impact is minimal. The coop itself is attractive, well-placed, and screened by shade trees and fencing. It is not intrusive. A lesser relaxation of the setback requirements would make the coop and run area more prominent, by putting it out in the open in the middle of the yard. It would also result in it being closer to the residence of the only neighbor that objects to its presence. Thus, a lesser relaxation would lead to a perverse result; instead of lessening the impact and visibility of the coop through the use of setbacks, these effects would be greater. The two chickens are quiet, clean, and non-threatening. There was ample testimony that many neighbors had no idea that the chickens were at the property. We find no basis to support the allegation that the presence of two pet chickens will increase health risks in the immediate environs of the property. In sum, 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 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 5 0. Date Issued: November 22, 2013 BOARD OF APPEALS By: Matt Harsh, Chair 3
BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND DANIEL CORBIN Appellant Appeal No. AP2013-060 OPINION This action is an appeal for a variance from the minimum 600 setback from all property lines to a 200 front setback, 10 left side setback, 5 rear setback, and 320 right side setback to establish a recreational motocross track; and for a variance from the minimum 25 setback from the street right-of-way to 1 for the placement of a freestanding sign. The subject property is known as 21036 National Pike, Boonsboro, Maryland, is owned by Evelyn C. Barr Trustee, and is zoned Rural Business Existing. A public hearing was held before the Board on October 23, 2013. Opposition was presented to this request. 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 seeks to establish a motocross track at Family Recreation Park on the subject 20-acre parcel. 2. The track would be approximately one (1) mile in length, dirt, and of varied terrain. 3. The track would be in the northern corner of the property, with legs extending along the west (left) side and east (rear) side property lines. 4. The track would be 10 from the left property line and 5 from the rear property line. The testimony revealed that the Appellant's requested relief was for a sign that exceeded the allowable 35 square foot sign area. That variance was not properly filed or advertised and will not be considered by the Board during this proceeding. 1
5. The track would be used seasonally, from March through June and September through November. 6. The track would be used as part of a race series, where there would be three (3) day-long races per year with 100 200 participants. 7. There would be one (1) practice session weekly. 8. Track hours of operation would be between 10 A.M. and dusk. 9. When not in use, Appellant plans to grass over the track and use it as part of the driving range. 10. The subject property is across the street from a drag strip. The property also hosts a go-cart track. 11. Neighboring property owners testified against the request. They noted that the property was not unique from other properties in the area so as to support the grant of a variance. 12. They also noted that the use was intense and would generate noise and dust that would interfere with their quiet enjoyment of their residences. 13. In rebuttal, the Appellant addressed the dust concerns by noting that the track would be watered and groomed between races. He also noted that races would not occur during summer, when dry, dusty conditions would be more likely. 14. Addressing the noise and intrusiveness concerns, he noted that the track was buffered by a road and farmland, would not be in continuous use, and would not have lighting. 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 2
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). We are not convinced that the grant of variance relief is warranted in this situation. Of initial import, there was no showing of the property s uniqueness such that variance relief could be exercised. It is regularlyshaped, being 20 acres in size with unremarkable terrain. It is too small for the proposed use, but not unique from other properties in the area. Furthermore, this is also a request that would add a use to a property already supporting a variety of uses amalgamated as an amusement park. Thus, strict compliance would not prevent the use of a property for a permitted purpose, as it is already being so used. A property is not entitled to every use to which it may be put when it is of inadequate size to support the proposed use without zoning relief. Moreover, the use is one with adverse effects. It creates noise, dust, traffic, and fumes; on race days, these effects will be intense. They differ in scope and scale from the effects generated by other uses on this property or on other properties in the surrounding neighborhood. Most importantly, however, is the scope of the setback reductions. The subject property is simply too small to accommodate the proposed motocross use. Each property line requires a significant setback reduction. The most extreme reductions from the left and rear property lines require 590 and 595 reductions from the required 600 standard. Such variances are not mere reductions in the setback requirements, they are eviscerations of it. Based on the evidence presented, we cannot determine 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 3
existing infrastructure; or that the proposal was an inappropriate use of land or structure. As such, we cannot conclude that the grant of the requested variance relief would uphold the spirit of the Ordinance and secure public safety and welfare. Based upon all of the testimony and evidence presented, this Board for the reasons set forth herein, DENIES this appeal by a vote of 5 0. Date Issued: November 22, 2013 BOARD OF APPEALS By: Matt Harsh, Chair 4