City of Cambridge DEPARTMENT OFI PUBLIC WORKS PLANNING & ZONING 1025 Washington St. Cambridge, Maryland21613 Telephone: 410-228-1955 Fax: 410-228-3814  Board of Appeals Agenda  The City of Cambridge Historic Preservation Commission will conduct an in-person meeting on Tuesday,  August 27th, 2024a at! 6:00pmatCowneil Chambers, 305 Gay Street. The meeting will be streamed live on Townaistreams.com  The conference call-in instructions are; Dial in: (848)- 777-1500# Access the meeting online with WebEx: Meeting number: 25527804871  Access code: 83256#  https//ciyolcambrnaemdwepexcom/etyolambrogema/php/MID-mgc8216.053520ab408152878172ebd  Tuesday, August 27, 2024600PMI1hour I(UTC-04:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) Password: 8M4jKUP8x67 (86455878 when dialing from a video system)  1) BOA2025-1 200-208 Sunburst Highway: Appeal of Zoning Official 2) BOA2025-2 811 Locust Street: Special Exception with Conditions-  Determination on legal non-conforming signage.  "Commercial Sales in the NC-3 District"  This agenda iss subject to change, the final agenda will be approved by the Commission at the Hearing.    r  City of Cambridge DEPARTMENT OF PUBLICV WORKS PLANNING & ZONING 1025 WASHINGTONSTREET CAMBRIDGE, MARYLAND2 21613 410-228-1955 Board of Appeals Staff Report August 27+,2024  MARYLAND 1684  BACKGROUND INFORMATION:  Applicant/Owner: BOA Case No.: Nature of Request: Location of Property: Total Acreage: Zoning: Year Built: Open violations?: I. BACKGROUND: III. DISCUSSION:  Arik. Jakob/Segal Group BZ2025-1  Appeal on Zoning Official determination regarding signage 220 Sunburst Highway, Cambridge MD: 21613  41,372 sqft General Commercial 1997  None  This is an appeal regarding the determination of Legal Non- The applicant (200-208 Sunburst Hwy) has applied for appeal  conforming Signage made by the City Zoning Official, on May 28th, 2024.  regarding the pole sign of their neighboring property (220 Sunburst Hwy). In April of 2024, the applicant met with Planner Holly Baldwin and City Engineer Carl "Bucky" Jackson on the newly improved property at 200 Sunburst Hwy to discuss proper placement of the monument sign associated with Chipotle. The applicant was informed that the placement they had selected was obstructed in view by the adjacent property's: sign in question, and it was suggested by city staff that    the applicant discuss with the adjacent property owner the possible movement On April 25th, the Segall Group contacted the city to ask for enforcement to occur on the adjacent property sign. After several email exchanges to provide clarification, the Zoning Official (along with review by City Attorney Patrick Thomas) issued a Letter of Zoning Determination dated May 28+h, 2024 for the sign in question to confirm it's legal non-conforming status (enclosed). The  or removal of the sign.  appeal application was received on. June 24th, 2024.  Since the application, staff has worked in communication with both Segall Group and the manager of the adjacent property gas station Quick Stop in order to facilitate a conversation regarding the sign. Staff was told by the managing staff at the gas station who own the sign in question that they would be amenable to movement or removal of the sign. Staff has provided contact information to both Segall Group and Quick Stop, and was notified by Segall Group that conversations  had begun regarding the removal of the sign.  IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As outlined in the Letter of Zoning Determination, dated May 28th, 2024, staff believes that this sign is in legal non-conformance with the Unified Development Code, and that any change that has been made to the sign has been required in order to maintain it's functionality. Staff believes that the ultimate goal of the Segall Group is to see the sign removed, and that it isa matter most appropriately dealt with through the negotiation between  private property owners.    CITYOF CH IBRIDGE DEPARTMENTO. PUBLIC WORKS PLANNING & ZONING 705LEON RDLANE CAMBRIDGE,M: RYLAND21613 TELEPHONE: 10-728-6466 FAx:410 28-1474  BZA  D  Case # 2023-1  MAR)/LAND 584  BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPLICATION  ) Variance APPLICANT Note: 8 Copies oft thisa application bes submitted MUST the Application OWNER INFORMATION SAME AS APPLICANT  (X) Appeal  ()Special Exception  Name: co 008 Sunbunst, ALC  INFORMATION Mailing address: 605 5. Edk s, Sukdco  Blmune MD  02133/ Fax#: emal  toc complete  Phone #: 40-977-7787  com  gbseyky  Name:  Mailing address: Phone #:  SM 3  Fax #: MD Size  Property address: 00-309 Sunbns! Hay  PROPERTY INFORMATION  Map & Parcel #: Zoning of Property:  ye 45  (acres or sq.ft  This is an application to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a  request of: Kmeyny a /449  APPLICATION REQUEST  a 7 4  f hy  s Cook a  Statement by applicant - use additional pages if necessary:  JUSTIFICATION FOR REQUEST  Se feckd  Ihereby certify that the information provided on this application and any accompanying information is accurate, true and correct to the best of my  knowledge and belief.  IK6 6/24124  Signature of Applicant  Date  Receipt #  Date    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS  CHECKLIST  THBI FOLLOWING INFORMATION MUST ACCOMPANY AN. APPLICATIONTO THE. BOARD OFZONING APPEALS AND. IS TOBE! PROVIDED BY THE The application form must be completed by the applicant in its entirety. Incorrect or inaccurate information may result in dismissal of the appeal on procedural grounds,  APPLICANT:  a Application and justification statement  a The appropriate drawings showing all existing and proposed improvements on the property, with dimensions and distances to property lines, all abutting streets, and any special conditions of the property that mayjustify  the request  The fee has been determined by the City Council.  $200.00  FOR OFFICE USE:  Case Number:  Date Filed: uasbesuy Date:  Placard Posted on Property: Decision of Board:  Notice Published in Newspaper:  Applicant (s)) Notified of Decision by mail:    200-208 SUNBURST HIGHWAY, LLC  Phonet 410.753.3000 Fax: 410.753.3010 605 South Eden Street, Suite; 200 Baltimore, MD 21231  Justification Statement  We appreciate the opportunity to present our case to the Board of Appeals. Our company has a 57+ year history of developing first-class retail sites int the mid-Atlantic region. We were excited by the opportunity to develop a prominent but neglected site in the City of Cambridge. Having delivered what we regard as a premier project at the City's gateway, we are disappointed by Citysinterpretation ofi its  Unified Development Code (the "UDC").  I.  Facts  In 2023, we purchased 200-208 Sunburst Highway to redevelop into a first-class retail site that would enhance all visitors' experience upon entering and exiting the City of Cambridge. We worked closely with the City to accomplish that, and were able to execute al lease with a national restaurant company fora a portion of the site. We are proud oft the monument sign we constructed advertises our retail After investing millions of dollars on the acquisition and redevelopment of our property, we learned that the City regards thei free-standing, unsightly liquor sign located on the adjacent lot at 220 Sunburst Highway (the "Adjacent Sign") to fall within the legal, non-conforming status of the UDC and that the Planning and Zoning Department is agreeable to permittingi its continued, unmodified use. Wei initially emailed Ms. Holly Baldwin at the City of Cambridge, on April 25, 2024, requesting that the Adjacent Sign be removed as a nonconforming sign that fails to meet the City's signage criteria. Through e-mail correspondence with Ms. Baldwin and others with whom she consulted, the City insisted that the Adjacent Sign meets requirements for non-conforming signage, and requested that we attempt to resolve the Adjacent Sign location, appearance and/or removal with the adjacent property owner. Such attempts have proven futile. After repeated requests for the City toj justifyi its determination, on May 28, 2024, we received a zoning determination letter which is the basis of our Please note that we do not dispute, nor do we have a basis to contest, whether the Adjacent Sign was, in fact, legal at the time it was erected. For purposes oft this appeal, we will concede its original conformity tot the then-applicable provisions oft the City's signage ordinance. The basis for this appeal is the City's inaccurate application of the UDC with regard to the Adjacent Sign, as more fully set forth below. The UDC nttps/www.choosecambridge-com/Documentcenter/lew/891/Cambridge-UDC.with- signed-ordinances-101227bidlde) was adopted by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Cambridge on December 8, 2014 and updated several times thereafter, most recently on October1 1, 2022.  tenants and serves as welcome to visitors of "Historic Cambridge."  appeal (the "Zoning Letter").  II.  Analysis    As cited int the Zoning Letter, the relevant section of the UDC is Section 6.5.9.B, which states:  "B.  Nonconforming May Continue  Signs existing at the time of the adoption of this Section and not conforming to its provisions, but which did conform to previous laws, shall be regarded as nonconforming signs and these may be continued if properly maintained and repaired as provided in this Section except as  provided below." (emphasis added)  As noted above, our contention is not with respect to whether the Adjacent Sign conformed to previous laws but rather that it clearly was not properly maintained and repaired and, as a result, should not be  considered 'grandfathered" into UDC compliance. Section 6.5.9.B continues by saying:  "1. The structure, sign face, or accessories ofa a nonconforming sign shall not be altered, modified, changed, reconstructed or moved without bringing the sign in all aspects into compliance of this Section, provided, however, that nothing herein shall prohibit the normal In the Zoning Letter, the staff of the Planning and Zoning Department (the "Staff"): stated that "[w]hile thei face of the sign has changed over time, it must be acknowledged that the normal maintenance of the sign has required periodic refacing due to fading. Thus, such refacing constitutes normal maintenance or repair, not an alteration, modification, change, reconstruction, or relocation of the: sign", ins support ofi its determination that the Adjacent Sign should retain its legal nonconforming status. Upon information and belief, our understanding is that the original sign was approved and constructed as an illuminated marquee sign with an areai for individual lettering for the advertising of merchandise. As you can see from the photos we have attached to this submission, thei illumination no longer functions and the: sign box fori individual lettering has been covered with pre-printed banners stapled to the old sign. In addition, the rear oft the sign! has been modified by attaching a PVCI board to provide a double-sided: surface for the same banners as are mounted on thei front side. It is cleari from the photos that these changes do not constitute 'normal maintenance or repair" of the Adjacent Sign but, rather, are a material "alteration, modification, change" and, arguably "reconstruction" of the Adjacent Sign, any one of which would disqualify the Adjacent Sign as being legal nonconforming. Frankly, it defies logic that the conversion of an illuminated reader board design to a makeshift billboard sign where new banners are attached each time the retailer makes a new liquor promotion would be considered "normal maintenance or repair." For example, normal maintenance under the non-conforming rules would entail cosmetic upkeep such as replacement of the plexiglass, light bulbs, paint - none of which appear to have been undertaken by the owner of the Adjacent Sign. Yet, somehow, the Staff finds that the attachment of liquor advertisements with the use of screws to the Adjacent Sign constitutes normal maintenance Beyond the clear text oft the UDC, there is also a public policy argument that the City, as conveyed to us during our site plan approval process, was looking to ensure the property would present a first-class  maintenance or repair of any nonconforming sign."  As noted above, we respectfully and strongly disagree.  and repair.    entrance to visitors coming to or passing through Cambridge. Our significant investment in both the property and improvements, in part for the construction of the new monument sign, were all performed inr reliance ont the City's priorities as expressed to us. To require the investment int the corner property while continuing to allow the presence ofa a dilapidated Adjacent Sign to prominently remain is a clear violation oft the City's own UDC, and: sends the wrong message to residents, visitors and developers  about the unequal application of development standards.  III. Conclusion  We urge the Board of Appeals to reject the Staff's assertion that the Adjacent Sign is simply being maintained and repaired and toi find that the Adjacent Sign has been modified from its original condition and should not be grandfathered under the UDCas a legal nonconforming sign.    N  a  3 - 0 N 9 e    Natua!                        3    OF CAA  City of Cambridge PLANNING ANDZ ZONING DEPARTMENT 1025 WASHINGTON STREET CAMBRIDGE, MARYLAND 21613 ELPONE410228-1955 MD RELAY (V/TTY) 7-1or1-8007352258 E-Mail: baldwin@choosecambridge.com  MARYLAND 68  May 28, 2024 Attn: Arik. Jakob Segall Group  Re: Zoning Determination for nonconforming signage at. 220 Sunburst Highway  This letter is ini response to a request for determination regarding the legality of the freestanding pole sign located at the northern corner of 220 Sunburst Highway on the property of the "Quick Mart" liquor store and Citgo gas station. This signi is currently being used by the liquor store specifically to display alcohol branding. This sign was installed and inc operation prior to the 2014 Comprehensive Rezoning and extensive update to the City's zoning code, the Unified Development Code (the "UDC"). This type of sign is nonconforming under the UDC. After critical review of the relevant sections of the UDC regarding nonconforming signage, iti is the determination of the Planning and Zoning Department that the sign is a legalnonconforming: sign, based upon the following  subsections ot8659Noncomfoming Signs int the UDC:  $6.5.9Nonconfomming Signs A. Zoning Official to Enforce  The. Zoning Official shall order the removal ofa any sign erected or maintained in violation of the law as it existed prior to the date of the adoption oft this Ordinance. Such a sign does not  qualifyas a nonconforming sign.  B. Nonconforming May Continue  Signs existing at the time of the adoption of this Section and not conforming to its provisions, but which did conform to previous laws, shall be regarded as nonconforming signs and these may be continued: if properlymaintained. and repaired as provided in this  Section except as provided below.    1. The. structure, sign face, oraccessories ofanonconforming: sign shall not be altered, modified, changed, reconstructed orr moved without. bringing the. sign in all respects into compliance with this Section, provided, however, that nothing herein. shall prohibit the normal maintenance or repair ofa anynonconforming: sign. While the face of the sign has changed over time, it must be acknowledged that the normal maintenance of the sign has required periodic refacing due toi fading. Thus, such refacing constitutes normal maintenance or repair, not an alteration, modification, change,  reconstruction, or relocation of the sign.  2. Under: this Section, a sign isi inseparable from andi intrinsicallya, part oft the land use and activity of the property on which it is located. Therefore no site plan for anyproperty: shall be approved unless it provides that all ewstingnonconforming signs and new: signs are made to conform to the provisions oft this Section. There are currently no applications for modifications to the site, or changes tot the use. The use has been in continual occupancy since 1997. The signi in question most likely dates  close to that time.  3. Upon approval of a special exception use on the site where a nonconforming sign ors signs exist, all such nonconforming signs shall be brought into conformance  with the applicable provisions oft this Section.  No application for a Special Exception has been made for the site.  Accordingly, the Planning and Zoning Department's determinations is that the subject sign is al legal nonconforming sign, and no enforcement action will be taken at1 this time. Pursuant to $2.2.6 of the UDC, you may appeal this determination to the Cambridge Board of Appeals by filing an appeal within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter.  Sincerely,  Holly Baldwin Planner  Cc: Brandon Hesson, Zoning Official Patrick Thomas, City Attorney    OF CAN  City of Cambridge DEPARTMENT OF PUBLICWORKS PLANNING & ZONING 1025WASANGTONSTRET CAMBMOA,MATVND21613 410-228-1955 Board of Appeals Staff Report August 27th,2024  MARYLAND 1684  . BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Applicant/Owner: Thomas Bradley  BOA Case No.: the NC-3 District  BOA2025-2  Nature of Request: Special Exception with Conditions for Use as a Commercial Retail Space in  Location of Property: 811 Locust Street, Cambridge MD 21613  Total Acreage: Zoning: Year Built:  5513s sqft  Neighborhood Conservation-3  1918  Open violations?: None  II. BACKGROUND: This is a Special Exception request for the use of 811 Locust Street as commercial retail space with a focus on antiques and collectable items. This application was reviewed and forwarded with recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission on. June 3rd, 2024. The vote for recommendation of  approval was unanimous.  III. DISCUSSION: This property is currently mixed-use with office space on the first floor, and residential apartments on the second floor. Historically, this location held a corner store that served the West End district. The applicant will not be    making any land or structural alterations fort this use, and will be completing Section 4.2.3 B (1) outlines the conditions that must be met for a Special Exception to be, granted for Commercial Use in the Neighborhood Conservation districts. The applicant has outlined how they have met those conditions in the  minor upgrades to the interior of the property.  application with this packet.  IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Special Exception.    Damayiow  City of Cambridge DEPARTMENT OFI PUBLICWORKS PLAMNINGÈZONING CAMsMnoEMANLNB.16D 105WASHNOTONSTER TELEPHONE: 410-228-1955 E-Mail: inegssosamhndpwe FAX:410-228-1474  MAROLAND  Application to the Planning and Zoning Commission  P&Z review for Special Exception  PZCase #  BOA Case #BOA 2075-2  Providea digital copywithy yorsuhmission. Provideseventeen, aprselhepim.Allat  PROPERTY (LAND)OWNER: Thomas Brad! 5609 Baybery_hy  Name Street Address E-Mail. Address  Cobrdse City  MP State  21613 Zip Code  tebadeyle yhhco.com  410-Gol-7187  Phone Number  APPLICANT INFORMATION: (IF DIFFERENT THAN PROPERTY OWNER)  Name Street Address E-Mail Address  City  State  Zip Code  Phone Number  PROPERTY INFORMATION: 81 Locust 5. ADDRESS AND LOCATION: 6700/0590 Map/Parce! Number  Combridgs MD 2103  Camnerde Curjent Zoning  Owner/Applicant Signature_ B    Special Exception: There is a $200 fee associated with) filing an application) for a Special  Exception.  1. The establishment, maintenance and operation oft the special exception at its proposed location will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, or general The ptopased fekil spcce wi hawve Datlales cAd Heloopn ns arGal.and wi aocT QL Clientrlle that ore Callectofs of Sck ems Aand He il Ant high louel a Aoffc.  welfare.  0  gencate  2. The special exception ati its proposed location shall be such that it will be harmonious in character as well as appropriate in appearance with and will not bei injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the Retall locatton 15 on Asofic Stfucture 4hat has beer in the neiglanchngd Since./918,  neighborhood,  3. The establishment of the special exception at its proposed location will not impede the normal and orderly development and improyement ofsurrounding properties. The reta, SPALR, DiC enhance the aledy adulng nechirhcod by aHfachig desivablé Patoas Dnd beins AK Rwefchest to  Tbloing Careas  4. Adequate utilities, public water and sewer facilities, access streets, drainage and all AN moioned aboge 15 adegyate,  necessary facilities have been or are being provided. fesoonsNo adled  Abpblc  uiy demands.  5. The special exception shall be such that pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle traffic associated with such use at its proposed location will not be hazardous to or unduly conflict with the existing and anticipated traffici in the neighborhood. here ore Cufrently & porking Spices at +he fec  Pfapeyt bAly tae Tepliled    6. The special exception shall in all other respects conform to the' applicable regulations of the district in which it is located and to the special requirements that may be The propased spoce wll abide by gll cyppllcohe Megulahohn st the disthcT  established for the specific use.  7. The proposed use ati its proposed location conforms to the Comprehensive Plan.  Yeta.ning Cu astohc CApagsilapace,  BE her ben in the nelbichend scB    JANSAV aN3 JSIM  . Til    22aj avosns  j2U.9- OW  6AM  po    : :  WEST END AVENUE