Tax Map/Block/Parcel No. 52-1-300 Case 6524 OFFICIAL DECISION BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CARROLL COUNTY, MARYLAND APPLICANT: Regina M. Taylor 2217 Ridge Road Westminster, MD 21157 ATTORNEY: N/A REQUEST: Request for a conditional use for a two-family home and multiple variances. LOCATION: The site is located at 1242 Washington Road in Westminster, Maryland on property zoned "R-10,000" R-10,000 Residence District in Election District 7. BASIS: Code ofPublic Local Laws and Ordinances, Sections 158.075.01 and 158.075.03. HEARING HELD: October 29, 2024 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION On October 29, 2024, the Board of Zoning Appeals (the Board) convened to hear a request for a conditional use for a two-family home and multiple variances. Based on the testimony and evidence presented, the Board made the following findings and conclusions. The applicant advised that the two-family dwelling was always at the location. Regina M. Taylor testified as the first witness. She stated that they bought the house at an auction. The dwelling was a two-family dwelling which had tenants in each of the two dwellings. There was a fire at the house. As a result of the fire the applicant wanted to repair the structure. A stop work order was issued by the County Permits and Inspection Office. There was no record of County approval of the two-dwelling house at that location. The house was built in the 1900s, but as far as she could remember there were always tenants living at the house. Byron Taylor testified in the case. He attended Westminster High School in the 1970s and there were two separate units in the house back then. There were always two separate water meters and two separate electrical meters installed at the house since the 1970s. There were always two rental units in the house. He wanted to remodel the house and wanted the repair work to be legitimate. In an October 10, 2024, memorandum Andrew R. Gray, Comprehensive Planner, wrote that this request is consistent with the City of Westminster 2009 Comprehensive Plan. The Board found that the property was unique. The Board also found that the property was used as a two rental house since the 1970s. Although the original owners of the property may not have obtained permits that are needed today, it was well known that there were two separate tenants in the house. The applicants purchased the house as a two-family unit. The property was utilized as a two-family unit until the fire made repairs necessary. At the time of needing the repair work, it was discovered that no permits had been issued for the two-family dwelling. However, the county officials were on notice of the use as a two-family dwelling since the 1970s. The Board was convinced that authorization of the request with regard to a conditional use was consistent with the purpose of the zoning ordinance, appropriate in light of the factors to be considered regarding conditional uses of the zoning ordinance and would not unduly affect the residents of adjacent properties, the values ofthose properties, or public interests. Based on the findings of fact made by the Board above, the Board found that the proposed project would not generate adverse effects (i.e. noise, traffic, dust, water issues, lighting issues, property depreciation, etc.) greater here than elsewhere in the zone. The Board approved the conditional use requested by the applicants. 031.,2004 MERbI Date Melvin E. Baile, Jr., Chairman Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals may be appealed to the Circuit Court for Carroll County within 30 days of the date of the decision pursuant to Land Use Article, Section 4-401 of the Annotated Code of Maryland. Pursuant to Section 158.133 (H)(3) of the County Code, this approval will become void unless all applicable requirements of this section are met. Contact the Office ofZoning Administration at 410-386-2980 for specific compliançe instructions. YABZAVFORMSIDecikson format.doc Tax Map/Block/Parcel No. 37-22-555 Case 6527 OFFICIAL DECISION BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CARROLL COUNTY, MARYLAND APPLICANT: Miller Stambaugh Farm, LLC 517 Vision Way Westminster, MD 21158 ATTORNEY: Bradford Webb, Esq. 305 W. Chesapeake Ave., Ste. 105 Towson, MD 21204 REQUEST: An appeal of a decision made by the Agricultural Board regarding a provision in a Deed of Conservation Easement. LOCATION: The site is located at 309 Jasontown Road, Westminster, Maryland on property zoned "A" Agricultural District in Election District 2. BASIS: Code of Public Local Laws and Ordinances, Section 158.133(B)C)(a). HEARING HELD: October 29, 2024 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION On October 29, 2024, the Board ofZoning Appeals (the Board) convened to hear an appeal of a decision made by the Agricultural Board regarding a provision in a Deed ofConservation Easement. Based on the testimony and evidence presented, the Board made the following findings and conclusions. It was stated in the hearing that this hearing was a de novo hearing. Mr. Webb stated that the hearing was an on the record hearing. The Board did not receive a record from the Carroll County Agricultural Preservation Advisory Board. The only document that came from the Carroll County Agricultural Preservation Advisory Board is an August 8, 2024, letter from the Program Manager, J.P. Smith, Jr. The Deed ofConservation Easement would have been a part oft that record. The Board's file includes an application from the applicant dated August 23, 2023, to be a forest bank owner with the Bureau of Resource Management. A number of provisions in the Deed ofConservation Easement, which was recorded in the land records office, are pertinent here: Page 2 paragraph 2 The purposes ofthis Conservation Easement is to conserve and preserve the significant conservation values in Exhibit Cand the natural, agricultural, forestal, environmental, scenic, cultural, rural, woodland and wetland characteristics of the Property, maintain viable resource-based land use and proper management of tillable and wooded areas oft the Property, and, to the extent hereinafter provided, prevent the use or development ofthe Property for any purpose or in any manner that would conflict with the maintenance of the Property in its open-space condition. ARTICLE II D. Transferable. Cluster and Other Development Rights Except as specifically reserved in this Conservation Easement, Grantors hereby grants to Grantee all development rights that are now or hereafter allocated to, implied, reserved or inherent in the Property, and the parties agree that such rights are terminated and extinguished, and may not be used or transferred to any portion ofthe Property, or to any other property, nor used for the purpose of calculating permissible lot yield of the Property or any other property. Grantors further agree that the Property shall not be used to provide required open space for the development or subdivision of another property, nor shall it be used in determining any other permissible residential or commercial uses of another property. ARTICLE II L. Reserved Rights Except to the extent that prior written approval of Grantee is required by any paragraph of this Article, all rights reserved by Grantors or not prohibited by this Conservation Easement are considered to be consistent with the Terms ofthis Conservation Easement and require no prior notification or approval. IfGrantors has any doubt with respect to whether or not any particular use of the Property is prohibited By the Terms ofthis Conservation Easement, Grantors may submit a written request to Grantee for consideration and approval of such use. ARTICLE II J. Rights of Third Parties to Use the Property Grantors may not authorize or allow a third party to use the Property in a manner inconsistent with the Terms of the Conservation Easement. Therefore, no right to use the Property, whether in the form of a right-of-way, easement, oil, gas or mineral lease or other right or through the Property, unless the right or interest is consistent with the Terms of this Conservation Easement. (These prohibitions do not apply to a right to use the Property that was in existence prior to this Conservation Easement unless said right was subordinated to this Conservation Easement). Notwithstanding the foregoing, third party rights to use the Property may be granted in connection with uses, buildings, and structures permitted by the Terms herein (such as the granting of a utility easement to benefit a permitted dwelling.) Charles J. Miller, III testified as the applicant. He is a member of the Miller Stambaugh Farm, LLC. He was aware that the farm was subject to a Deed ofConservation Easement. (County Exhibit 1 and same document in Board's file with Exhibits.) He applied for a forest bank/off-site reserve application in 2023 to the Bureau ofResource Management. He is aware that he can plant trees on his property without a forest bank/off-site reserve application. He understood that most ofthe time the forest mitigation requirement was used by developers. In other words, developers paid property owners for the forest bank credits. He testified that his intent was to sell easements ifhe obtained the forest bank credits. Dan Staley works with DRS Associates. The applicant came to him about forest banks. He did not see a problem with a forest bank going on the property. He believed that Exhibit 1 would prohibit required open space. Open space would be used in a planned unit development (PUD). He noted that "open space" was defined in Chapter 158 ofthe Code. He has assisted people who had forest bank needs. He stated that forest banks provide a higher quality forest. He has been managing forest banks for twenty-five years. Forest banks were not mentioned in the Deed of Conservation Easement. (County Exhibit 1.) Open space is applied to PUD and clustering. Jonathan Bowman testified as the forest conservation specialist with the Bureau of Resource Management. He addressed the establishment for forest banks in Chapter 150.09 of the Code for the County. He stated that a property owner could "create a forest bank from which applicants may purchase credits to meet the afforestation and reforestation requirements of this chapter. 99 150.09(A) He stated that a developer could purchase credits from forest bank owners. In other words, developers pay the forest bank owner for the use of their forest bank. Developers paid property owners for the forest bank credits. The applicants have an application to be a forest bank owner with the Bureau of Resource Management. The application is dated August 29, 2023. A forest bank is used to mitigate forest removal for reforestation and afforestation. Open space has no bearing on forest conservation. Itis helpful to have the forest banks consolidated rather than have them all over the County. A title report would be a requirement for a forest bank. The purpose of the title report would be to ensure that "the property is not encumbered by any covenants or other types of restrictions which would impair the property's use as a forest bank, 99 150.090CX4X0X6)0, He stated that the applicants could currently plant trees on their property that would not be for the benefit of a developer. He stated that the Deed ofConservation Easement would be a factor in the forest bank application. As a result ofthe applicants' application for a forest bank it was referred to the Carroll County Agricultural Board. He stated that the County had a low inventory of forest bank credits available to developers. J.P. Smith, Jr., program manager ofthe Agriculture Preservation Board, testified in the case. He stated that the Carroll County Agricultural Preservation Advisory Board believed that granting the forest bank would conflict with the Deed of Conservation Easement. He further believed that growing a forest bank was inconsistent with the Deed of Conservation Easement. County Exhibit 1 was deeded to the County Commissioners ofCarroll County. The County paid $462,000.00 to prior owners ofthe property. County Exhibit 1. The easement was in effect forever and in perpetuity. He recommended to the Board to not approve the request for the tree bank by the applicant. He stated that the Board did not want property owners to plant trees in good farmland. The Agricultural Board submitted a two-page ty pewritten statement to the Board. Brad Webb sent an eleven-page typewritten statement to the Board. These documents were considered by the Board in this Forest Bank overlay easement matter. It is clear that there is a Deed ofConservation Easement on the property as of 2010. The applicants then applied for a Forest Bank overlay easement in 2024. The Deed ofConservation Easement does not mention the term "tree bank"ini it. The Board found the Grantee was granted "all development rights that are now or hereafter allocated to. implied, reserved or inherent in the Property, and the parties agree that such rights are terminated and extinguished. : Article II Section D of County Exhibit 1. The section goes on to state "that the Property shall not be used to provide required open space for the development or subdivision of another property. : The Board heard testimony about forest banks. The Board also found that the phrase "nor shall it be used in determining any other permissible residential or commercial uses of another property" would not allow the applicant to have a forest bank on the property. The purpose ofthe Deed ofConservation Easement was to "prevent the use or development of the Property for any purpose or in any manner that would conflict with the maintenance ofthe Property in its open-space condition." : Page 2 paragraph 2. The planting of trees to benefit developers did not contribute to the maintenance of the property and was a development of'the property that did not benefit the current use of the property for the Commissioners of Carroll County. The Board agreed that the Deed of Easement was to conserve and preserve the agricultural characteristics and forestall any rural characteristics ofthe property and should "prevent the use or development ofthe Property for any purpose or in any manner that would conflict with the maintenance of the Property in its open-space condition. Agriculture means "all methods of production and management of livestock, crops, trees and other vegetation... Article II Section A of Deed of Easement. A third party could not have an easement placed on the property. The Board did not believe that a third party should benefit by having an easement placed on the property for its benefit. The Carroll County Commissioners would be one party to the Agricultural Easement and the Forest Bank easement. The other party of both easements would be the property owner. Third party interest include things "in the form of a right-of-way, easement.. or other rights or interest in. on or through the Property. :9 Article II Section J of Deed of Easement. The case is not about the planting of trees on the property. The applicant can plant trees for himself. There is no restriction for that. The case is about the applicant wanting a tree bank to be paid by developers to plant trees on bchalfofthe developers. Exhibit C of Summary of Conservation Values in the Deed ofConservation Easement states "The property is a priority for the purpose of a conservation easement by the Agricultural Land Preservation Program and approximately 84.05 acres of farmland will be protected from fragmentation." The property cannot be subdivided for residential or agricultural purposes. A forest bank easement is subject to a title report. The title report is to ensure that the property is not encumbered by any covenants or other ty pes of restrictions which would impair the property's use as a forest bank. The applicant' s property is encumbered with the Deed of Conservation Easement, and that is the reason that the applicant had to get a determination from the Agricultural Board. Mr. Webb made a number of contentions that the Board did not agree with. Before the Deed of Conservation Easement existed. the property owner could have put in a tree bank. The property owner gave up certain rights when it entered into the Deed ofConservation Easement. The establishment of a tree bank on the property was not one of the rights that the property owner gave up. The growing of trees is an agricultural use. The County needed to be fair to land owners. Land owners were not clearly put on notice that they could not have a Deed of Conservation Easement and a tree bank. The Deed ofConservation Easement is ambiguous and should be resolved against the party that drafted it. This restriction of the Forest Bank overlay easement came to the property owner as a surprise. The Board believed that the Deed ofConservation Easement did address a tree bank in the future, even though the words tree bank were not mentioned in the document. The document was all about agricultural use. A tree bank is clearly not like the management oflivestock or crops that need to be harvested. These uses have seasons for growing and harvesting. A tree bank is trees being grown for the purpose ofcredits. It would not be a seasonal thing. The Deed ofConservation Easement dealt with a broad agricultural use of the land. The tree bank would be a part ofthat agricultural use. Two easements dealing with the same use would be contrary to the first easement. There is a title issue with the tree hank starting after the Deed of Conservation Easement. The Board upheld the decision of the Agricultural Board in County Exhibit 2. The Board denies the application for a Forest Bank overlay easement as set forth in Mr. Webb's May 10, 2024, letter. 04312094 wlEBabl Date Melvin E. Baile, Jr., Chaitman Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals may be appealed to the Circuit Court for Carroll County within 30 days ofthe date ofthe decision pursuant to Land Use Article, Section 4-401 of the Annotated Code of Maryland. Pursuant to Section 158.133 (H)(3) of the County Code. this approval will become void unless all applicable requirements oft this section are met. Contact the Office of Zoning Administration at 410-386-2980 for specific compliance instructions. YAUZAVFORMSIDX.LNoN format. doc Tax Map/Block/Parce! No. 6-23-11 Case 6528 OFFICIAL DECISION BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CARROLL COUNTY, MARYLAND APPLICANT: John & Katherine Gundzik 2901 Mt. Ventus Road Manchester, MD 21102 ATTORNEY: Bradford Webb, Esq. 305 W. Chesapeake Ave., Ste. 105 Towson, MD 21204 REQUEST: An appeal of a decision made by Development Review regarding a decision in the pre-submittal stage. LOCATION: The site is located at 2901 Mt. Ventus Road, Manchester, Maryland on property zoned "A" Agricultural District in Election District 6. BASIS: Code of Public Local Laws and Ordinances, Section 158.133(B)(I)a). HEARING HELD: November 26, 2024 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION On November 26, 2024, the Board of Zoning Appeals (the Board) convened to hear an appeal of a decision made by Development Review regarding a decision in the pre-submittal stage. Based on the testimony and evidence presented, the Board made the following findings and conclusions. The issue in the case pertains to a lot yield issue at the pre-submittal stage of the development review process. The Gundziks own several adjacent parcels ofland which will comprise the subdivision and are known as Parcel 10, Parcel 177 and Parcel 11, Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. The Gundziks intend to design the available density SO that each subdivision lot will have access to Mount Ventus Road via a new publicly maintained road to be constructed as part ofthe subdivision process. The Gundziks want to transfer two residential building lots from the south of the Baltimore Gas and Electric power lines to the north ofthe BG&E power lines. The Bureau ofDevelopment Review decided that the Gundziks could not transfer the two lots from the south ofthe BG&E power lines to the north of the BG&E power lines. John Gundzik testified in the case. He stated that he owned Parcel 10, Parcel 177 and Parcel 11, Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. Stoney Lane gave access to Parcel 11 Part 1 of3 and 3 of3. Stoney Lane is a private road and not a county-maintained road. He was appealing the decision made by the Bureau ofDevelopment Review. BG&E took fourteen acres from Parcel 11. Dan Staley, with DRS Associates, testified in the case for the Gundziks. The Gundziks own the areas highlighted in yellow in Gundzik Exhibit 1. Parcel 11 Part 3 of3 has a fee simple easement owned by Baltimore Gas and Electric running through it. He stated that Parcel 177 and Parcel 11 1 of3 would have road frontage with an existing county-maintained road. There were no publicly maintained roads that could pass through Parcel 11 Part 3 of3. The closest road to Parcel 11 Part 3 of3 is Wentz Road. There are no publicly maintained roads to the south of Parcel 11 Part 3 of3 or to the west of Parcel 11 Part 3 of3. Parcel 10 has 33 acres; Parcel 177 has 21 acres; Parcel 11 Part 1 has 33 acres; Parcel 11 Part 2 has 4.8 acres; Parcel 11 Part 3 has 26 acres. The Gundziks lost property due to the BG&E power lines. Laura Matyas, Bureau Chief of Development Review, testified in the case. She made the decision that is being appealed in this case. Her decision was set forth in a May 7, 2024 email to Brad Webb, Esq. Ms. Matyas wrote the following in the email: "Having reviewed your letter as well as the material submitted by Dan Staley, I am still oft the opinion that Parcel 11, Part 3 is without density to transfer. Your letter states, "Based on the area, the density calculates to include two lots plus a remaining portion." Calculating yield based solely on acreage fails to acknowledge the subdivision regulations of Chapter 155, $155.033(B) is but a subset of Chapter 155; the yield must exist per the regulations before it may be considered for transferring. There is not a unique means of calculating yield which is specific to Chapter 155.033(B). Chapter 155 requires that the parcel must first have road frontage." She stated that Parcel 11 Part 1 of 3, Part 2 of3 and Part 3 of3 did not have access to a publicly maintained road. Parcel 10 and Parcel 177 have road frontage with Mount Ventus Road. She stated that Stoney Lane was not a publicly maintained road. The owners ofproperty can create road frontage to a publicly maintained road but have to demonstrate it on paper first. Chapter 155 of the County Code includes sections $155.031 and $155.033. Chapter 155.031 states the following: (A) In order for a property to be eligible for subdivision, the property shall have a minimum of 30 feet in fee simple frontage to a publicly maintained road. Chapter 155.031 (B) All lots being created through the subdivision process shall be designed to provide in fee simple frontage to a publicly maintained road. The frontage shall be capable of providing vehicular access to the property. Where it is determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission that a street should be designed in a subdivision to carry traffic from other areas or adjacent subdivisions (whether existing or potential), a minimum of 60 feet shall be shown, unless specifically modified by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Where a subdivision is created fronting on an existing county-maintained road, front lot lines ofa subdivision shall be established 30 feet from the center ofthe existing county-maintained road, unless specifically modified by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Proposed streets shall be designed in accordance with the Design Manual. A temporary turnaround shall be designed and constructed to extend to the extreme limits of the property, unless otherwise waived by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Board decided that the Gundziks could not transfer the two lots from the south of the BG&E power lines to the north ofthe BG&E power lines. The Board agreed with the decision made by Laura Matyas on this matter and affirmed her decision. The Board found that the property owners had to comply with all parts of the rules and regulations in Chapter 155. Chapter 155.033 could not be viewed alone. It had to be considered with the whole of Chapter 155. uL 13-2:2004 SB Date Melvin E. Baile, Jr., Chaifman Decisions oft the Board ofZoning Appeals may be appealed to the Circuit Court for Carroll County within 30 days of the date ofthe decision pursuant to Land Use Article, Section 4-401 of the Annotated Code ofMaryland. Pursuant to Section 158.133 (H)(3) of the County Code, this approval will become void unless all applicable requirements of this section are met. Contact the Office of Zoning Administration at 410-386-2980 for specific compliance instructions. VAIBZAFORMSDeciion format. .doc Tax Map/Block/Parce! No.40-2-527 Case 6529 OFFICIAL DECISION BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CARROLL COUND.MARYLAND APPLICANT: Richard Sobbott 2202 Hampstead Mexico Road Westminster, MD 21157 ATTORNEY: Kelly J. Shaffer Miller, Esq. Shaffer, Miller & Hurff, LLP 73 East Main Street Westminster. MD 21157 REQU EST: A request for a conditional use and variances for a banquet/event facility. LOCATION: The site is located at 2202 Hampstead Mexico Road, Westminster, Maryland 21157 on property zoned "A" Agricultural District in Election District 8. BASIS: Code ofl Public Local Laws and Ordinances, Sections 158.071.01, 158.040 and 155.051. HEARING HELD: October 29, 2024 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION On October 29, 2024, the Board of Zoning Appeals (the Board) convened to hear a request for a conditional use and variance for a banquet/event facility. Based on the testimony and evidence presented, the Board made the following findings and conclusions. Richard Sobbott and his wife live on the property. The house is in Exhibit 3 page 8. They live on an active farm that involves cattle. They are near retirement age and want the banquet/event facility for their retirement. His son got married on the property in 2022. His daughter got married on the property more recently. He and his wife have four adult children. The red pin in Exhibit 2 is where he lives. His daughter got married in the barn, shown on page 3 of Exhibit 3. The lower level of the barn was used for COWS and hay. The barn was always used as a recreation room. There are two bathrooms on a lower level. He made changes to the barn like replacing the foundation wall. The remodel of the barn was done through the County permit process. He went through the permit process because he knew that in the future he might use the barn for other occasions. Exhibit 4 represents a previous BZA approval for the same property in 2012. This approval was for wedding receptions and similar events. He presented four options for the use of bathroom facilities. He would not be paving for a parking lot. The parking area would be a grassy area. He specifically stated that he wanted his events to be for less than 100 people and wanted to have twelve or less events per year. He wanted the music for events to end by 10:00 p.m. The events could include weddings or birthday parties. Whoever leased or rented his property would provide catering and music. He would expect the events to be on weekends and holidays. He stated that the fire code indicates that he cannot have more than 100 people in the barn. He did not want to be compelled to put sprinkles in the barn. There is no heating in the barn and events could not occur during cold winter months. Sun Dog Road is a private road. He would not expect to use Sun Dog Road. Martin Hackett, with CLSI, testified as an expert in land use, planning and design. He prepared the drawing that accompanied the application. The subject property isin the Agricultural zone. A pond is on the site. See Exhibit 3 pagc 9. There is also a stream running along Maryland Route 482. The property has 10.25 acres and is accessed off of 482. The traffic for most ofthe events would be off peak hours. The age oft the barn is about 1895 and predates zoning laws. The existing concrete bridge would require a variance on the width. There would be significant hurdles to increase the width ofthe bridge. Without the requested variances the barn would need to be relocated. The variances are from the use (woodshop) to the property lines. However, the main existing barn is where most of'the use will occur. He believed that the screening was adequate the way it was. In an October 10, 2024, memorandum Andrew R. Gray, Comprehensive Planner, wrote that this request is consistent with the Carroll County Master Plan, as amended in 2019. The Board found that the requested use was consistent with the Master Plan and met the Pritts standard. The idea of moving a one hundred year old barn was considered silly. The Board was convinced that authorization ofthe request with regard to a conditional use was consistent with the purpose of the zoning ordinance, appropriate in light of the factors to be considered regarding conditional uses of the zoning ordinance and would not unduly affect the residents of adjacent properties, the values of those properties, or public interests. Based on the findings of fact made by the Board above. the Board found that the proposed project would not generate adverse effects (i.e. noise, traffic, dust, water issues, lighting issues, property depreciation, etc.) greater here than elsewhere in the zone. The Board approved the conditional use and the variances requested by the applicants. There are two conditions to the Board's approval: 1) The music must end by 10:00 p.m. 2) The capacity at events must be 100 people or less. Qt31.2024 wEB! Date Melvin E. Baile, Jr.hairman Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals may be appealed to the Circuit Court for Carroll County within 30 days of the date of the decision pursuant to Land Use Article, Section 4-401 of the Annotated Code of Maryland. Pursuant to Section 158.133 (H)(3) of the County Code. this approval will become void unless all applicable requirements ofthis section are met. Contact the Office ofZoning Administration at 410-386-2980 for specific compliance instructions. YIBZAIFORMSIXeision format doc