Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/03/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin September 25, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 18 Variance —County Grants Variance and Special Exception, Allowing Landowners to Park Paving Equipment on Their Property Neighbors object, arguing variances may not be granted for reasons of mere convenience Citation: Mills v. Godlove, 2011 WL 2652481 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2011) MARYLAND (07/07/11)—This case addresses the issue of whether a zoning board had properly granted a special exception and variance. The case addresses the standards that must be met in granting special excep- tions and variances. The Background/Facts: James L. Mills and Korina Mills (the "Mills") owned property in Washington County. Their property was divided by a road. They resided on the east side of the road and maintained a garage and paving equipment on the west side. The Mills parked the paving equipment —including four dump trucks, a backhoe, and a trailer with a paver and roller —on the west side of the property for seven years. Then, a complaint was filed, challenging the legality of this parking practice. As a result, the Mills sought a special exception and variance to con- tinue parking the paving equipment on their property. They asserted that it would be a "big hassle" to park the equipment off -site because the nearest storage area was 30 miles away. They also argued that keeping the paving equipment on their property would prevent "theft, vandalism, and other adverse acts." Several neighbors, including Ronald Godlove and Gail McDowell (collectively, the "Neighbors"), opposed the variance and special excep- tion. They primarily argued that parking paving equipment on the Mills' property would be detrimental to the environment and would affect property values in the area. More specifically, among other things, they argued it would: be disruptive to the Neighbors' quiet enjoyment; be det- rimental to property values; and create excessive odors, dust, gas, smoke, fumes, vibrations, or glare. Ultimately, the County Board of Zoning Appeals (the "Board") grant- ed the requested zoning variance and special exception. The Board ex- plained that a variance was necessary because: the Mills' property was unique due to the size and shape of the lot; and strict compliance with the special exception requirements would be impossible. The Board also noted that denying the variance would "be a substantial injustice." The Board specifically noted that the Mills' request for a variance and spe- cial exception was "primarily one of convenience," since the Mills had a snow removal contract with the state which required them to mobilize within one hour's notice. © 2011 Thomson Reuters 5