Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pocomoke City Board approves pet grooming salon as nonconforming use at 201 Fourth Street
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals voted by voice to allow a pet grooming salon to replace a prior nonconforming use at 201 Fourth Street after hearing from the applicant about operations, hours and trip-generation estimates included in the staff report.
POCOMOKE CITY — The Pocomoke City Board of Zoning Appeals voted to approve a request to substitute a pet grooming salon for a nonconforming use at 201 Fourth Street, the board said at a public hearing.
The approval came after the applicant, Jacqueline Kathleen Props, described her grooming practice and answered board questions about operations. Props said she has run a grooming business for about 6½ years and specializes in “special needs” and medical cases that other groomers do not handle. She told the board many clients travel from nearby towns and that most would likely follow her to the new location.
Planning consultant Brent Jett of GMB presented the staff report’s trip-generation figures, saying, “a hair salon has approximately 51 auto trips a day and a pet salon, vet office, or a pet store would generate approximately 22 a day.” The board asked the applicant about staff and hours; Props said she would operate alone initially, might later hire a receptionist, and plans alternating weekly schedules (for example, Tuesday–Friday one week and Tuesday–Saturday the next), with possible reduced Saturday hours because of nearer houses at the new location. She said a self-bathing service is planned but would not start for at least a year while she completes safety preparations.
After testimony and a brief administrative record insertion (a consultant report was entered as Exhibit 1), a committee member moved to approve the nonconforming-use substitution “to approve this non-conforming use of this property.” Another committee member seconded the motion. The board approved the motion by voice; members responded “Aye,” and no opposition was recorded on the transcript.
The board then moved to adjourn. The hearing record does not specify detailed vote tallies or the names of board members who voted for or against the motion.
Meeting documents filed with the record include references to the Maryland Land Use Article (subtitle three) and chapter 230, article 16 of the Pocomoke City Zoning Code, which the chair cited at the opening of the hearing.
