Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Procedure And Precedent topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board members recount denied barbershop variance, variance standards and county solar legal history
Summary
The board discussed a denied special‑exception barbershop case (denied for lacking three required parking spaces), the legal findings required for variances under town code, and how county solar denials were appealed through the Maryland Public Service Commission and courts.
During the meeting Chair (S1) and Board member (S3) reviewed several past appeals and the board's standards for deciding variances and special exceptions. S3 recommended a closed attorney session for new members to cover quasi‑judicial expectations and said the attorney also helps ensure motions include required findings.
S3 reviewed the standards noted in the transcript as Town code §88‑63(b) for variances and §88‑64 for special exceptions, saying board members must identify the specific findings required by those provisions when writing a motion. He said experienced members often prepare detailed findings (a through n) to address the code's criteria.
Chair (S1) described a recent special‑exception request from a resident who converted a garage into a barber shop in Blaketown; the board denied the request because it lacked the minimum three parking spaces required for businesses in Walkersville and because the homeowners association opposed use of common‑area parking. Chair (S1) recounted that, “there was just there simply just wasn't enough spots” and that the board declined the application.
Board members also discussed the Biggs Ford solar project, which S3 said is located outside town in Frederick County. S3 described a sequence in which county denials under strict local criteria were appealed; developers sought approval through the Maryland Public Service Commission and the courts, and the county’s appeals were unsuccessful, allowing large‑scale solar projects to proceed. S3 said the outcome set a precedent that enabled applicants to pursue state‑level review when county standards were stricter than state regulators would allow.
No new policy was adopted at the meeting. The board emphasized precision in drafting motions and the importance of documenting findings required by the town code when considering variances or special exceptions.
