Opinion ID: 2050716
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Granting the Variances

Text: In their Petition for Certiorari, petitioners contended that the Board failed to make the necessary findings required in order to grant a variance and that the record does not contain evidence sufficient to support such a finding. Specifically, petitioners allege that the Board failed to properly define the relevant neighborhood that was considered when the Board found that the variances would not affect the neighborhood. We disagree with petitioners and find, after examining the record, that the Board established the relevant neighborhood and that the findings made by the Board were supported by substantial evidence. Respondents were granted three variances by the Board. The three variances are the seven-foot variance in respect to frontage on one street from the requirement of having 150 feet of frontage along each street, an eight-foot variance from the requirement of having the pump islands twenty feet apart, [12] and, in respect to one corner of an overhead canopy, a twenty-five-foot variance from the sixty-foot setback requirement from a dual, multi-lane, or divided highway. The standard for granting a variance is codified in Article 3, section 2-107 of the Code, which states in relevant part: § 2-107. Standards for granting variance. ... (c) A variance may not be granted under subsection (a) or (b) of this section unless the Board finds that: (1) the variance is the minimum variance necessary to afford relief; (2) the granting of the variance will not: (i) alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the lot is located .... [Emphasis added.] In its Memorandum of Opinion and Order dated December 2, 1997, the Board examined each variance and determined that each variance satisfied the requirements of section 2-107(a) and (c). Addressing section 2-107(c)(i), the Board stated: The granting of the three requested variances will not alter the essential character of this area. This neighborhood is developed with a mix of residential and commercial uses and is heavily impacted by its close proximity to Route 50 and its access ramps. The commercial uses are clustered along Route 50, as is the subject property, while the residential properties are further from the highway. The subject property is within the C1B district and is permitted to accommodate commercial uses. It is also immediately adjacent to Route 50 and a commercially developed property. The canopy will not encroach on the required setbacks to residential property, but rather, the [setback from the] Route 50 right-of-way. [Emphasis added.] We find the description of the neighborhood stated by the Board to be sufficient to satisfy the requirement of section 2-107(c)(i). The Board's description is precise enough to enable a party or an appellate court to comprehend the area that the Board considered when deciding to grant the variances. Furthermore, we cannot foresee how a more specific description of a larger or smaller neighborhood would have led the Board to determine that the three variances that were granted would alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The Board's Memorandum and Opinion clearly explains the Board's reasoning behind the granting of the variances, and its explanation of the considered neighborhood properly led to an understanding of the area the Board considered when granting the variances. We agree with the Court of Special Appeal's discussion when addressing the cases that petitioners have cited to show that the Board failed to properly define the neighborhood. The Court of Special Appeals, in its opinion, stated: The cases cited by appellants [petitioners] in support of their contention that that Board failed to define the surrounding neighborhood with sufficient particularity are inapposite. See Prince George's County Council v. Prestwick, Inc., 263 Md. 217, 282 A.2d 491 (1971); Chevy Chase Village v. Montgomery County Council, 258 Md. 27, 264 A.2d 861 (1970); Templeton v. County Council, 21 Md.App. 636, 321 A.2d 778 (1974). In those cases, the property owners sought to vary use restrictions imposed by the zoning ordinance through a zoning map amendment. By contrast, appellees seek to vary the Code's area restrictions, not its use restrictions. The standards applied to area variances are more relaxed than those applied to use variances because the impact of an area variance is viewed as being much less drastic than that of a use variance. Anderson v. Board of Appeals, 22 Md. App. 28, 39, 322 A.2d 220 (1974); see also McLean v. Soley, 270 Md. 208, 215, 310 A.2d 783 (1973); Cromwell, 102 Md. App. at 695 n. 1, 651 A.2d 424. Consequently, the cases cited by appellants do not support their contention that the surrounding neighborhood must be defined with the same precision in approving area variances as is required in approving use variances. The description given by the Board of the neighborhood sufficiently defined the relevant neighborhood for variance purposes so that the Board could make a determination about whether the variance would alter the essential character of that neighborhood.