Tax Map/Block/Parcel No. 30-15-79 Case 6414 OFFICIAL DECISION BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CARROLL COUNTY, MARYLAND APPLICANT: Stair's Valley High Farms, LLC clo Randy Stair 1742 Hughes Shop Road Westminster, MD 21158 ATTORNEY: N/A REQUEST: A request for Conditional Use for Farm Based Alcohol Production and variances for paving the drive and distance requirements. LOCATION: The site is located at 1742 Hughes Shop Road, Westminster, Maryland on property zoned "A" Agricultural District in Election District 7. BASIS: Code of Public Local Laws and Ordinances, Sections 158.070(E)C)a5), 158.078(C)(5), and 158.040(A). HEARING HELD: September 27, 2022 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION On September 27, 2022, the Board of Zoning Appeals (the Board) convened to hear the request for Conditional Use for Farm Based Alcohol Production and variances for paving the drive and distance requirements. Based on the testimony and evidence presented, the Board made the following findings and conclusions. Randy Stair testified as the applicant. He started growing a vineyard, in part, to keep the farm operational. He and his family wanted to come up with a crop strategy that would support the farm. The soil on the portion ofthe farm where the grapes are grown was not suitable for other crops. However, it was stated that soil that is not good for other crops is good for grapes. The land was described as rocky and a pile of stone. One can sell grapes at one to two dollars a pound. One can sell wine at twenty dollars or more a bottle. A lot of wineries in the area also have venue space for events. His venue had a view ofthe mountains and a view of the grape vineyard. He noted that there were a few small wineries in Carroll County. There are sixteen deeds associated with the farm. All ofthe deeds state that the farm has access to all roadways. He stated that there were eighteen children in the family. The eighteen children have all basically risen to the challenge oftaking part in the grape growing and/or the winery initiative. The wedding venue would be across from the house. Mr. Stair lives near the winery; his sister also lives near the winery. He would be fine with a limitation of twelve events a year at the banquet facilities. He would like to have a capacity of guests at a 150 maximum. He also agreed that the events should stop at 10 p.m. Tents could be placed up at the banquet facilities. He would not want to have a vineyard of more than five acres. The event space is separate from the winery. He would expect to have between thirty and forty people come to the winery for tastings. Some oft the variances are from the property of family members. One variance is needed SO that a road is not totally paved. At the current time part of the road is on grass and a portion ofiti is paved. This initiative is a way to preserve the farm. He mentioned that there was an intention to put the sixteen deeds into a trust. Richard S. Krebs, a professional land surveyor, testified about the site plan that he prepared for the applicant. He explained the reason for the variances needed. A September 15, 2022 memorandum from the Department of Planning and Abigail Rogers, Planning Technician, stated that the staff finding was that this request is consistent with the 2014 Carroll County Comprehensive Plan as amended in 2019 and would not have an adverse effect on the current use ofthe property. The Board understood that this new venture with the winery and the grapes was needed to keep the farm operational. The goal was for the farm to survive. Some ofthe variances were from property owned by family members. The costs ofthe adding paving for the winery operation would be a hardship. The Board noted the distinction between the winery being on one side ofthe property and the event venue on another side of the property. 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 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. The Board approved the conditional use and the variances requested by the applicant. There are three conditions on the approval: 1) the events at the facility are limited to 150 people; 2) the number of events would be limited to twelve per year; and 3) the music at the events needs to end by 10 p.m. 6ep30.2022 wBokl - 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 of the date ofthe decision pursuant to Land Use Article, Section 4-401 of the Annotated Code ofMaryland. Pursuant to Section 158.132 (E) oft the County Code, this approval will become void one year after the date ofissuance ifthe 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) ofthe 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 of the date of the 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 thel 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. VAIBZAFORMSDecision format.doc Tax Map/Block/Parcel No. 74-13-468 Case 6413 OFFICIAL DECISION BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CARROLL COUNTY, MARYLAND APPLICANT: Brown and Brown Companies, LLC 5826 Oklahoma Road Sykesville, MD 21784 ATTORNEY: Stephanie R. Brophy, Esq. Dulany, Leahy, Curtis and Brophy, LLP 182 East Main Street Westminster, MD 21157 REQUEST: A request for Conditional Use for rental of vehicles and goods with primarily outdoor equipment storage. LOCATION: The site is located at 2007 Liberty Road, Sykesville, Maryland on property zoned "C-2" Commercial Medium Intensity District in Election District 5. BASIS: Code of Public Local Laws and Ordinances, Sections 158.078 and 158.082(A)(11). HEARING HELD: September 27, 2022 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION On September 27, 2022, the Board ofZoning. Appeals (the Board) convened to hear the request for Conditional Use for rental ofvehicles and goods with primarily outdoor equipment storage. Based on the testimony and evidence presented, the Board made the following findings and conclusions. Thomas Brown, Jr. testified as the applicant in the case. He and his father are the only two members of the Brown and Brown Companies, LLC. He stated that the nature of the business was to rent things to the general public like Ben's Rental in Westminster. There would be from two to three employees on the site. He would expect from five to ten customers on an average day. There would be more people over the summer months. The company delivers equipment from two to four times a week. He has small equipment and uses pickup trucks for the deliveries. Property outside would be used for the storage of equipment. He would use the current coffee shop for sales and show room rentals. On occasion he would also sell trailers. His business would be less intense than the previous business there. There is an outdoor lawn and garden center nearby. He plans on fencing in the property as noted in Exhibits 3 and 4. The decorative fencing with privacy slats would be on the side of the neighbor who adjoins the property. The other fencing would be for the remainder ofthe property. The main entrance would be through the coffee shop area. The company would maintain its property at the 1830 Liberty Road location. There would be no need for storage containers on the property. John Lemmerman testified in the case as an expert witness. The Board accepted him as an expert in the fields of land surveying, land use, and site plans. He works for RTF Associates, Inc. He prepared the simplified site plan in this case, which was entered into evidence as Exhibit 1. Skid steer, grinders and other small equipment would be stored on the property. His operation would be consistent with the County zoning laws. Dick's Landscape, an outdoor lawn and garden center, is nearby. He stated that the new business would not create dangerous traffic conditions. There would be nothing that would jeopardize the health and safety of the community. Mark Livesay testified in support of the application. He stated that he was in support of the family and the project. A revised September 15, 2022 memorandum from the Department ofPlanning and Abigail Rogers, Planning Technician, stated that the staff finding was that this request is consistent with the 2018 Freedom Community Comprehensive Plan and would not have an adverse effect on the current use of the property. The Board believed that the use ofthe property was made safer due to the traffic light at the location. The Board further believed that it was an ideal location for this use. 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 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 requested by the applicant. 5p130,2002 nulsld D Date Melvin E. Baile, Jr., Chairhan Decisions of 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 of Maryland. Pursuant to Section 158.132 (E) of the County Code, this approval will become void one year after the date ofissuance if 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 ofthe date oft the 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 ofl 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 ai timely manner, as determined by the Bureau of Development Review. YABZAIFORMSDeciion format.doc Tax Map/Block/Parcel No. 64-19-401 Case 6408 OFFICIAL DECISION BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CARROLL COUNTY, MARYLAND APPLICANT: Colin & Courtney Wilson 1882 Lakeland Drive Finksburg, MD 21048 ATTORNEY: N/A REQUEST: An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of a professional office. LOCATION: The site is located at 1880 Lakeland Drive, Finksburg, Maryland on property zoned "C" Conservation District in Election District 4.. BASIS: Code of Public Local Laws and Ordinances, Section 158.133(D)(2). HEARING HELD: September 27, 2022 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION On September 27, 2022, the Board ofZoning Appeals (the Board) convened to hear a request for an appeal ofthe Zoning Administrator's s approval of a professional office. Based on the testimony and evidence presented, the Board made the following findings and conclusions in this de novo hearing. Jay C. Voight was the first witness who testified in the case. He pointed out the language in $158.071 (E)(11) oft the zoning code. It states that an accessory use in the Conservation District is "within a dwelling, the professional office of a physician, insurance agent, realtor or other profession determined by the Zoning Administrator to be similar in use and characteristics, subject to Zoning Administrator approval after a public hearing in accordance with $158.130(G). 7 He has been the Zoning Administrator for approximately thirteen years. He received an application for a "small mental health/therapy private practice" office out ofthe residence. The application was introduced into evidence as Exhibit 1. He held a public hearing on June 1, 2022 on the matter. He approved of the professional office in his written decision. Exhibit 2 is the license verification for Lauren McMillion by the State Board of Social Work Examiners. It shows that she is in active/good standing; it shows that she was licensed via an examination; it shows that the expiration date for her license is April 17, 2023; and it shows that she was certified as a LCSWC. The document further shows that the LCSW-C license holder must have obtained 2 years and at least 3,000 hours of clinical social work experience under clinical social work supervision and a minimum of 100 hours of face-to-face supervision in the assessment, formulation of a diagnostic impression, and treatment of mental disorders and other conditions and the provision of psychotherapy. Mr. Voight testified that the professional office would be in a separate area of the dwelling. It has a separate entrance and exit. He claimed that her professional office fit the definition as similari in use and characteristics as noted in $158.071 (E)(11). He based his decision on the evidence that he heard and was presented at his June 1, 2022 hearing. Lauren E. McMillion testified in the case. She applied for a "small mental health/therapy private practice" office. She is a licensed therapist. Her office has a separate side entrance from her house. She would treat in therapy from five to ten people a week. She has had her clinical license since 2019. Her focus is on mental health therapy. Some ofthe areas that she treats are anxiety, post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD), multiple personality disorders, and disassociative disorders caused by trauma. She is governed by a board for social work. She has the highest level oflicensure. She is also governed by Medicaid and Medicare, which is the means by which she is compensated. Her clients find her through physician referrals. Ms. McMillion also will perform telehealth from her home where she sees clients via Zoom. She explained what her duty to wam involved. She has worked in the field of social work since 2014. She would not see patients with active substance abuse. Christina Albertini testified in the case. She was a neighbor to Ms. McMillion for eight years. She was a wonderful neighbor. She had a private practice at another location for about two years. Her business is amazing. Her profession allows her to help people. Craig Benedict testified in the case. He has been a resident since 2013. He was concerned about the safety of his two year old son. He said that he lived on a dead end street. He was concerned about the increase in traffic due to the professional office. He said that Ms. McMillion treated people in trauma focused therapy. He noted that there were many other children that lived on or visited the dead end street. He believed that there would consistently be strangers on the street due to the professional office. Pete Abiera testified in the case. He is a retired chiropractor. He did not want business people in the community. He talked about aj provision in the charter that banned such a use. He stated that the basic premise in a deed was that the community be residential. He stated that there was no cure for PTSD. He has PTSD himself and has had it for thirty years. He did not want people with PTSD treated in his neighborhood. He stated that all people with PTSD or all individuals could be dangerous. Beverly Johnson testified in the case. She performed substance abuse counseling in the past. She has been a clinical social worker since 2002. She wanted to know about the security in the office if things went wrong. She was concerned about the safety of the community. There is a one way street in and out ofthe neighborhood. She previously worked for the Howard County Health Department and the courts. Robert Johnson testified in the case. He is a retired Baltimore City police officer. He did not want to see stragglers on the street. He wanted to hear something in the hearing about the security issue with regard to the professional office. Courtney Wilson testified in the case. She had safety concerns. She said there was a petition with 100 signatures in opposition to the application. There was no protection for the neighborhood. She believed that Ms. McMillion should protect her neighbors. She believed that people should be able to get mental health help. She believed that she should rent space for her office. She could also do all of her work via telehealth. She believed that Ms. McMillion was presenting a risk to the community. She said that she could not prove that there would be trouble at Ms. McMillion's office, but she also could not prove that there would not be trouble there. Colin Wilson testified in the case. He entered into evidence four exhibits. Wilson Exhibit 1 was a notice of public hearing for the Zoning Administrator's case on June 1, 2022. Wilson Exhibit 2 was a 1983 deed for Lakeland Heights, Inc. He stated that the deed noted that the building could be used "for residential purposes only" as noted in the deed. He stated that his neighborhood was one of about twenty houses. He wanted to know how he could be assured that Ms. McMillion would only see between five and ten patients a week. This office should not be in a residential setting. It was disturbing to think of what could happen as a result ofMs. McMillion's professional office. He believed that the Board should deny the application and keep people safe. He acknowledged that something bad may never happen. He wanted to know who would be liable if one ofMs. McMillion's clients created a problem. Wilson Exhibit3 is a map with the pink and green dots showing that children reside or visit the locations. He was not aware that Ms. McMillion had been seeing clients since the Zoning Administrator approval. Wilson Exhibit 4 was a petition with 104 people who were in opposition to the professional office. He wanted a governing body to oversee Ms. McMillion's practice. Elizabeth McMillion is the mother of Lauren McMillion. Her husband is CO-owner ofthe property. Her daughter wanted a place where she could raise chickens and could have a family in the future. She stated that she and her husband may move in with their daughter in the future. William Barren testified in the case. He lived with Ms. McMillion. He lived with her when she had a practice on the Eastern Shore too. He stated that there would not be a lot of extra traffic or extra people coming to the house. It is within her rights to have the professional office and a part ofher liberty. Kelly Holloway testified in the case. She has known Ms. McMillion for about five years. She was impressed by her professionalism. She pointed out that some oft the neighbors did not even know that Ms. McMillion had been seeing clients since she obtained approval from the Zoning Administrator. William McMillion testified in the case. Ms. McMillion is his daughter. He is a CO- owner ofthe property. Ifhis daughter was doing something unsafe, then he would not allow it. Anamaria Barabas testified in the case. She has known Ms. McMillion for about seven years. She is her dear friend. At the height ofCOVID 19 Ms. McMillion quit herj job and opened a private practice. Statistics show that social work is a mostly safe profession. However, safety is a concern. The patients are not allowed to be videoed by the therapists. Every two years practicing licensed therapists must have their license renewed. Ms. McMillion would see one patient at a time and there would be no group work. Ms. McMillion has worked in the social work field for about eight years. The Board is required to determine whether the Lauren McMillion had a professional office pursuant to the zoning code. The code allowed a professional office of a physician, insurance agent, realtor or other profession similar in use or characteristics to be considered an accessory use in the Conservation district. $158.071 (E)(11). The Board is required to determine the meaning ofProfession, Professional and Professional Office. Aj profession is defined in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (9th Ed.) as A calling requiring specialized knowledge and after long and intensive academic preparation; Aj principle calling, vocation or employment; and The whole body of persons engaged in a calling. Blacks's Law Dictionary (gth ED.) defines "profession" as A vocation requiring advanced education and training; especially, one of three leamed professions-law, medicine and the ministry. Blacks's Law Dictionary (gth ED.) defines "professional" as a person who belongs to a learned profession or whose occupation requires a high level of training and proficiency. Webster's Third New International Dictionary of1 the English Language, Unabridged (1986) uses the following definition of "profession": A calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive preparation including instruction in skills and inethods as well as in the scientific, historical, or scholarly principles underlying such skills and methods, maintaining by force of organization or concerted opinion high standards of achievement and conduct, and committing its members to continue to study and to a kind of work which has for its prime purpose the rendering of a public service. A widely used on-line dictionary defines "profession" as A calling requiring specialized knowledge and after long and intensive academic preparation; A principal calling, vocation, or employment; or The whole body of persons engaged in a calling. htp/www.meriam-wehster.com/icionary/profesion (last visited in 2016). The Board considers a "profession" for $158.071 (E)(11) to mean an occupation that requires specialized knowledge which is derived through long and intensive academic education and training. A "professional" is an individual who is engaged in such an occupation. A "professional office is the office in which the professional engages in her profession. Some people claimed that Ms. McMilliion was not a physician and could not open a physician's office. Exhibit 2 clearly shows that she is a LCSW-C. She needed advanced education and training to become a LCSW-C. From her application in Exhibit 1 to the hearing, her request was for a "small mental health/private practice" office. She never claimed to be a physician. The Board concluded that Ms. McMillion was engaged in a profession. She had a license from the Maryland Department of] Health and the State Board of Social Work Examiners. The license showed that to obtain the LCSW-C license the applicant must have obtained 2 years and at least 3,000 hours of clinical social work experience under clinical social work supervision and a minimum of 100 hours of face-to-face supervision in the assessment, formulation of a diagnostic impression, and treatment of mental disorders and other conditions and the provision ofp psychotherapy. The deed referenced by Mr. Wilson included language after the "for residential purposes only" language. It later stated that "any part of any dwelling now or hereafter erected on said land may be used, but only in conjunction with a residential use, as a physician's, dentist's, chiropractor's, attorney's, or accountant's office for the treatment of patients or for the practice ofs said professions, to the extent permitted by the applicable zoning laws of Carroll County." So the deed referred to by Mr. Wilson presented no impediment to Ms. McMillion professional office as it is in compliance with Carroll County zoning laws. The Board was convinced that authorization of the accessory use as a professional office was consistent with the purpose of the zoning ordinance. Ms. McMillion was clearly in a profession similar in use and characteristics to a physician. The Board approved the accessory use requested by the applicant, Ms. McMillion. The Board recognized that many people had no problem with mental treatment for those in need ofit. However, most oft those people did not want the treatment to occur in their neighborhood. The zoning code allows such uses in the Conservation District as an accessory use. Some people in the audience did not know that her professional office was opened after approval from the Zoning Administrator. 64p1302022 WwlBly Date Melvin E. Baile, Jr., Chairman Decisions ofthe 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 158.132 (E) ofthe County Code, this approval will become void one year after the date ofi issuance ifthe 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 of the date oft the 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 ofDevelopment 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 of the site plan from the Planning Commission in a timely manner, as determined by the Bureau ofl Development Review. YABZAIFORMSIDecision format.doc