Tax Map/Block/Parcel No. 66-6-417 Case 6531 OFFICIAL DECISION BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CARROLL COUNTY, MARYLAND APPLICANT: Marsha Nusbaum 2154 EnoffDrive Westminster, Maryland 21157 ATTORNEY: N/A REQUEST: A request for a variance of 190' for an accessory dwelling unit connected to a workshop. LOCATION: The site is located at 2154 Enoff Drive, Westminster, Maryland on property zoned "C" Conservation District in Election District 9. BASIS: Code of Public Local Laws and Ordinances, Section 158.071.02. HEARING HELD: November 26, 2024 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION On November 26, 2024, the Board of Zoning Appeals (the Board) convened to hear the request for a variance of 190' for an accessory dwelling unit connected to a workshop. Based on the testimony and evidence presented, the Board made the following findings and conclusions. Marsha Nusbaum's father bought the property that has now been subdivided into Enoff Estates in 1998. She purchased a lot from her parents and built a house at 2154 Enoff Drive in 1999. Her youngest child is getting married soon and her parents will be turning 82 years old in the next two months. Her current home is too big for her. She wants to build a barndominium on the property. This building would serve as a workshop for her son and a condo for Ms. Nusbaum. Her son and his wife could start their family in the primary dwelling where she now resides. Jonathan Nusbaum testified in the case. The property has unique circumstances including the following: the challenging lot; conservation zoned; well location; septic location; and a private road. Addressing the hardships means dealing with poor perc tests and a challenging grading and topography. The lot is in a conservation zoning district. Conservation zoning means that there must be a 50' setback from all property lines. Exhibit 1 page 1 shows the primary residence, the well, the septic field, the proposed drive, and the proposed building location. The second page ofExhibit 1 shows the information from the Health Department and indicates where the perc tests were performed. There is very poor drainage on the east side of the property at failed perc tests 7, 8, and 16. This forced the neighbors on that side ofthe property to install a sand mound to pass the health department requirements. Matt Shipley, with CLSI, is confident that the proposed location offers the best potential for the secondary septic system required by the Health Department for a separate structure, that will pass the Health Department requirements. The third page of Exhibit 1 shows there is an eighteen foot elevation change over the 190' span from the primary residence through the septic field to the proposed location. Ifthe new structure was built on a slope it would require 3-5 steps to get from the garage into the first floor ofthe unit. The proposed unit is highlighted in blue on page 4 of Exhibit 1. The entire building will be on the same grade plane resulting in the avoidance of significant alterations to the landscape. The current location preserves the natural features ofthe property and maintains its ecological integrity. Page 5 of Exhibit 1 shows a sketch ofthe unit. There were a number of letters from neighbors in support of the proposed use as noted in Exhibit 2. The Board approved the requested variance of 190' for an accessory dwelling unit connected to a workshop. 13-22004 wwkEBo Date Melvin E. Baile, Jr., Chairman Decisions of the Board ofZoning 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 158.132 (E) ofthe County Code, this approval will become void one year after the date of issuance if the construction or use for which the certificate was issued has not been started. Contact the Office ofZoning Administration at 410-386-2980 for specific compliance instructions. Pursuant to Section 158.133(H)(3) of the County Code: (3) Approvals. (a) Ifthe application is approved by the BZA which does not require a site plan, the approval shall become void unless a building permit conforming to the plans for which the approval was granted is obtained within six months. (b) An approval for which a building permit is not required shall become void unless the use or variance is implemented within one year ofthe date ofthe written decision. (c) An approval for which a site plan is required shall become void unless the concept site plan has been submitted for distribution to the reviewing agencies and accepted by the Bureau of Development Review, or its success agency, within six months from the date of the written decision. An approval for which a site plan is required may become void ifthe property owner or developer fails to take action to secure an approval ofthe site plan from the Planning Commission in a timely manner, as determined by the Bureau of] Development Review. YABZAIFORMSIDecision format. doc Tax Map/Block/Parcel No. 70-24-173 Case 6533 OFFICIAL DECISION BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CARROLL COUNTY, MARYLAND APPLICANT: Richardson Engineering 2710 Hampstead Mexico Road Hampstead, MD 21074 ATTORNEY: N/A REQUEST: A request for a conditional use for a stand-alone daycare center. LOCATION: The site is located at 2710 Hampstead Mexico Road, Hampstead, Maryland, on property zoned "A" Agricultural District in Election District 8. BASIS: Code ofPublic Local Laws and Ordinances, Section 158.071.01. HEARING HELD: November 26, 2024 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION On November 26, 2024, the Board of Zoning Appeals (the Board) convened to hear the request for a conditional use for a stand-alone daycare center. Based on the testimony and evidence presented, the Board made the following findings and conclusions. Brian Kowalczyk testified for the applicant. He is the project engineer for the stand- alone daycare center and works for Richardson Engineering. The hours for the free-standing daycare facility would be 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. There is an existing daycare facility on the property. The new daycare center would have a capacity for 113 students and would have about twenty staff members. He stated that the land use would be in conjunction with the sports complex. The lot is 18.9 acres. This use would assist with the retention and expansion of an existing business. The use would also assist with an underutilized commercial property. Alex Jacobs is the owner of Coppermine Four Seasons Sports Complex. It currently has a daycare for approximately forty students for before and after school programs. The new stand- alone daycare facility would be three times larger than the existing facility. There is a need for daycare facilities in the community. Most oft the use at the establishment is for sports from 5:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Not much ofthe property is utilized before then. An October 18, 2024, memorandum from the Department of Planning and Carlisle Fillat, Comprehensive Planning Technician, stated that the staff finding was that this request is consistent with the 2014 Carroll County Master Plan as amended in 2019. The Board was convinced that authorization of the request with regard to a conditional use for a stand-alone daycare facility was consistent with the purpose of the zoning ordinance, appropriate in light ofthe 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. was - 12-2-:2024 Date Melvin E. Baile, Jr., Chairman Decisions oft the Board ofZoning Appeals may be appealed to the Circuit Court for Carroll County within 30 days oft the date of the decision pursuant to Land Use Article, Section 4-401 of the Annotated Code of Maryland. Pursuant to Section 158.132 (E) ofthe County Code, this approval will become void one year after the date ofissuance ift the construction or use for which the certificate was issued has not been started. Contact the Office of Zoning Administration at 410-386-2980 for specific compliance instructions. Pursuant to Section 158.133(H)(3) oft the County Code: (3) Approvals. (a) Ifthe application is approved by the BZA which does not require a site plan, the approval shall become void unless a building permit conforming to the plans for which the approval was granted is obtained within six months. (b) An approval for which a building permit is not required shall become void unless the use or variance is implemented within one year oft the date ofthe written decision. (c) An approval for which a site plan is required shall become void unless the concept site plan has been submitted for distribution to the reviewing agencies and accepted by the Bureau of Development Review, or its success agency, within six months from the date of the written decision. An approval for which a site plan is required may become void if the property owner or developer fails to take action to secure an approval ofthe site plan from the Planning Commission in a timely manner, as determined by the Bureau of Development Review. YBZAIFORMSIDecision 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. 99 She stated that Parcel 11 Part 1 of3, Part 2 of 3 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 of property can create road frontage to a publicly maintained road but have to demonstrate it on paper first. Chapter 155 ofthe 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 of60 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 ofthe 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 ofChapter 155. L 1-2:2024 SBA Date Melvin E. Baile, Jr., Chaifman Decisions of the Board ofZoning Appeals may be appealed to the Circuit Court for Carroll County within 30 days oft the date ofthe decision pursuant to Land Use Article, Section 4-401 of the Annotated Code ofMaryland. Pursuant to Section 158.133 (H)(3) oft 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. VABZAFORMSIDecision format. doc