Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/2016

Home

Zoning Bulletin July 10, 2016 ( Volume 10 Issue 13 Here,the court found that the use of a pier or walkway to reach nav- igable water to exercise the riparian rights associated with the property was a significant use of the property. Thus,the court concluded that, in the absence of a variance, the denial of that significant use would amount to an unwarranted hardship in this case. ACT had also argued that Schwalbach failed to meet the variance requirement of a showing of no adverse environmental impact. The court disagreed. It found that substantial evidence (including expert witness testimony and requirements that any environmental impact would have to be mitigated) established that Schwalbach's proposed pier would not have an adverse affect on the environment. Thus, in conclusion, the court found there was substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that: (1) without the variance, Schwalbach would have suffered an unwarranted hardship in that he would not have been able to exercise the riparian rights associated with the property, a reasonable and significant use that could not be exercised elsewhere on the entire property; and(2) the granting of the variance would not adversely affect water quality or the fish, wildlife, or plant habitat within the Critical Area—a finding contained in the Board's analysis of that standard and in its explicit determination that all standards"had been satisfied. See also: Belvoir Farms Homeowners Ass'rn, Inc. v. North, 355 Md. 259, 734 A.2d 227(1999) (defining "unwarranted hardship'). See also: White v. North, 356 Md. 31, 736 A.2d 1072 (1999) (defin- ing "unwarranted hardship'). Case Note: ACT had also contended that the Board's decision granting the variance was inadequate because the Board had failed to explicitly state that Schwalbach ' had, as required for a variance, overcome the statutory presunnption that the proposed development does not confornn with the general purpose and intent of the Critical Area Program. The court rejected that contention.It found that the Board had "adegttately found that [Schwalbach] had rebutted the presunnption of non-conformity of the proposed variance when it explicitly 6 determined in writing that he had carried the burden of proof as to all Stan- dards governing the proposed variance." Zoning News from Around the Nation MASSACHUSETTS The state Senate is considering changes to the state's zoning law. @2016 Thomson Reuters 11 l