IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

CASE NUMBER 2014-0039-S ______________________________________________

SNYDER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

THIRD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT

DATE HEARD: JULY 2, 2014

_______________________________________________

ORDERED BY:

DOUGLAS CLARK HOLLMANN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER

PLANNER: JOHN R. FURY

______________________________________________

DATE FILED: JULY 11, 2014

1

PLEADINGS

Snyder Development Corporation, the applicant, seeks a special exception

(2014-0039-S) to allow a Planned Unit Development on property comprising

44.88 acres located along the east side of Old Mill Boulevard, south of Elvaton

Road, Millersville.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

The hearing notice was posted on the County’s website in accordance with

the County Code. The file contains the certification of mailing to community

associations and interested persons. Each person designated in the application as

owning land that is located within 175 feet of the property was notified by mail,

sent to the address furnished with the application. However, after the original

decision was issued on May 21, 2014, this Office became aware that a significant

number of interested parties, i.e., property owners surrounding the subject

property, were not given adequate notice of the May 1, 2014 hearing.

Consequently, the May 21, 2014 decision was rescinded and a new hearing date

scheduled for July 2, 2014. Danny Boyd of Boyd & Dowgiallo, P.A., submitted

an affidavit indicating that the property was posted (Applicant’s Exhibit 1). I find

and conclude that the requirements of public notice have been satisfied.

FINDINGS

A hearing was held on July 2, 2014, in which the witnesses were sworn and

the following was presented with regard to the proposed relief requested by the

applicant.

2

The Property

The subject property is owned by Snyder/Elvaton, LLC, and has a street

address of 8318 Elvaton Road, Millersville, Maryland 21108. It consists of

separate parcels of land that total 44.88 acres, more or less, and is identified as

Lots 1 and 2 of Parcel 274 and Parcel 279 in Block 20 on Tax Map 16. The

property is split-zoned R1, R2, and R5. 9,877 square feet of the site is zoned R1-

Residential District, 35.97 acres are zoned R2-Residential, and 8.68 acres are

zoned R5-Residential. It is not located in the critical area.1

The Proposal

The applicant seeks a special exception to allow the property to be

developed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that will include 53 single-

family detached dwelling units and 66 townhouse dwelling units.

The Anne Arundel County Code

A PUD is governed by the provisions of § 18-12-201, et seq., and must also

meet the general standards contained in § 18-16-304 which apply to all special

exceptions.

The Evidence Presented At The Hearing

John R. Fury, a planner with the Office of Planning & Zoning (OPZ),

testified in support of the request. The property has historically been used as a

1 The Development Concept Plan is shown on Applicant’s Exhibit 3. For clarity, this decision will attach a copy of page 5 of the Design Guide Manual admitted into evidence as County Exhibit 7.

3

farm. Parcel 279 (“Bulk Parcel A”), which adjoins Elvaton Road, will remain

undeveloped.

The maximum net density for the R2 and R5 portions of the site is 81.0 and

38.4 dwelling units, respectively, or 119.6 units in total. The applicant seeks

approval for a PUD that will contain 119 dwelling units (53 single-family and 66

townhouse units). One entrance at the Oakwood Road end of the property has

been proposed. Community open space and an active recreation park have been

proposed near the entrance. The single-family lots would be separated from the

townhouse lots by a floodplain that will remain open space. Therefore, the

proposal meets the bulk regulations of § 18-12-203 for a PUD with respect to

coverage, open space, and dwelling unit composition.

§ 18-12-203(a) provides that the developer of a PUD shall propose bulk

regulations relating to lot size, setbacks for principal and accessory structures,

spacing between structures, and height limitations in a submittal of specific

development and design standards and, if approved by special exception, shall

govern the development of the PUD. The applicant has complied with this

requirement – see County Exhibit 7 – Design Guide Manual, which is

incorporated herein.

Mr. Fury testified that OPZ has determined that the proposed development

is generally compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. A traffic impact

study was submitted, although not required.

Agency comments were provided by the following agencies:

4

The Cultural Resources Division commented that there is an archeological

site on the Elvaton Road portion of the property but no further investigation is

needed.

The Long Range Division commented that the surrounding land uses are

primarily residential and that the site layout and density are generally compatible

with surrounding land use. Although the General Development Plan and the Glen

Burnie Small Area Plan proposed an extension of Oakwood Road, that proposal

has been deleted. The applicant has executed a deed to the County for a part of

that Oakwood Road right-of-way extension, and the County, in turn, has executed

a deed to the applicant for a portion of a right-of-way for a possible future

extension of Hospital Drive.

The Transportation Division commented that the applicant will have to

provide assistance in determining the details of the proposed access from

Oakwood Road.

The Development Division commented that Parcel A will remain

undeveloped because the density potential is being used for the proposed

development on the rest of the subject property.

The Department of Recreation and Parks recommended approval. A

portion of the property encompasses a segment of the Marley Creek Greenway.

The Fire Department has no objection to the proposal but commented that a

second entrance would benefit residents and improve emergency response

operations.

5

The Soil Conservation District offered no objection to the project.

Mr. Fury testified that, based upon the above findings, the proposal meets

the special exception requirements of § 18-16-304 although parking will remain an

issue that needs to be addressed during permit stage and a secondary means of

access should be addressed. Bulk Parcel A should remain undeveloped.

The applicant was represented at the hearing by Anthony F. Christhilf,

Esquire who presented evidence through Mr. Boyd, the applicant’s engineer, and

Zachary Lette, Vice-President of Land Planning & Design Associates, that the

proposed development will meet the requirements of § 18-12-201, et seq., and

§ 18-16-304. A 26-page Market Assessment was admitted into evidence as

Applicant’s Exhibit 6 to support a finding of public need for the proposed

dwelling units. Parking and landscape design requirements will be addressed and

resolved at the permitting stage.

A request was made to grant the applicant the opportunity to phase the

development of the property as permitted by § 18-16-304(b). The applicant

requested that the special exception be conditioned on the applicant being allowed

3 years to obtain a permit and 6 years in which to complete construction in

accordance with the permit. The justification for the request was based on the

need to obtain approvals from many agencies, including the Maryland Department

of the Environment and go through the subdivision, grading, and permit process

required for a project of this size.

6

Elsie Cullins testified that she lives at 7618 2nd Street, Pasadena and owns

Parcel 703 near the subject property. Ms. Cullins expressed concern about the

possible extension of Hospital Drive across her property but Mr. Boyd testified

that from his knowledge of the General Development Plan and other County

programs, no such extension is planned.

Sarah Hakulin testified that she lives at 8240 Ahearn Road and is the

President of the Village of Old Mill Community Association. She was also

concerned about the possible extension of Hospital Drive and the lack of notice to

her community and others about the applicant’s plans for the subject property.

She testified that her association does not think the proposed development fits in

with the surround neighborhood. Furthermore, she objected to the increased

traffic the development would put on the surrounding roads which she said were

already overloaded. She would like the access from Oakwood Road to continue

through the development to connect with Elvaton Road to help ease traffic on

Oakwood Road. Mr. Boyd testified that the applicant is opposed to that option for

the very reason that the residents in the development, once it is built, will not want

to have the roadway turned into a connector between Oakwood Road and Elvaton

Road.

Marie Fries testified that she lives at 8285 Pond Court and questioned why

the proposed road into the subject property, as depicted on the Concept Master

Plan attached as County Exhibit 2 to this decision, has to swerve over against her

rear yard. She would like to have the separation and buffer area increased so she

7

has more of a cushion between her property and the development. Mr. Boyd said

the applicant would consider moving the road but suggested the presence of

environmental features may have pushed the road toward Ms. Fries’ property line.

Cheryl Lute testified she also lives at 8284 Pond Court near the

Oakwood/Old Mill Blvd intersection. She said motorists have driven into the

woods on her property, and almost into her pool, and, therefore, she was very

concerned about the impact development would take on her property. She was

shown that there would be a wooded open space behind her property.

There was concern that the wooded open space at the entrance to the

development behind Ms. Lute’s property would be used for a 7-11 or similar

business but the evidence shows that the subject property is zoned residential and

cannot support a commercial use. Furthermore, with the building of the proposed

dwelling units, there is no density left for another structure on the property.

Finally, similar concerns about the bulk parcel on Elvaton Road were

answered in the same manner. Because the density allocation has been used up for

the entire property, the bulk parcel will be used for open space activities.

There was no other testimony taken or exhibits received in the matter. The

Hearing Officer did not visit the property.

The Special Exception

The applicant seeks a special exception to allow a PUD on the subject

property. The law is settled that a special exception use is a use that the legislative

body recognizes as compatible with permitted uses, subject to a public hearing to

8

show compliance with the underlying standards. Schultz v. Pritts, 291 Md. 1

(1981); Peoples Council for Baltimore County, et al v. Loyola College in

Maryland, in the Court of Appeals of Maryland 137, September Term 2007,

(September 9, 2008).

The Code provisions that govern the granting of a special exception for a

PUD are found in § 18-12-201, et seq., which reads as follows (the evidence

supporting each factor is in italics):

§ 18-12-202. Uses.

(a) For less than 500 units. A PUD of less than 500 dwelling units may have adult independent dwelling units, duplex or semi-detached dwellings, multifamily dwellings, single-family detached dwellings, townhouse dwellings, public utility essential services, and public utility uses in accordance with § 18-11-139.2

The applicant proposes 119 dwelling units (single-family detached and townhouse

dwellings) that will meet the provisions of this subsection.

§ 18-12-203. Bulk regulations.

(a) Generally. Bulk regulations relating to lot size, setbacks for principal and accessory structures, spacing between structures, and height limitations shall be proposed by the developer in a submittal of specific development and design standards and, if approved by special exception, shall govern the development of the PUD.

The applicant has proposed specific development and design standards as part of

its application for the PUD. The proposed lot sizes, building architecture,

stormwater management, road sections, plantings, pedestrian connectivity and

recreation areas will be reviewed at the permitting stage and appear to meet the

requirements of this section.

2 § 18-11-139 relates only to utility installations and is not relevant here.

9

(b) Setbacks if PUD abuts residential. When a structure in a PUD is located within 50 feet of the boundary line of a residential district, the setback for the structure shall be the more restrictive of the setback requirements for the abutting residential zoning district or for the zoning district in which the structure is located.

The adjoining properties are zoned R1, R2 and R5 residential. It appears that the

applicant can meet the applicable setback requirements.

(c) Density. The density of development in a PUD may not exceed the density allowed by the zoning district in which the development is located.

The density calculations allow 119 units, which is what the applicant proposes.

(d) Retail use. A single retail use may not exceed 65,000 square feet.

(Not applicable.)

(e) Bulk regulations.

Mr. Boyd testified that the property will be able to meet the bulk regulations for a

PUD on this property.

Therefore, it appears that the applicant has satisfied or will be able to

satisfy the requirements of § 18-12-201, et seq.

The applicant also appears able to satisfy the requirements of § 18-16-304,

which applies to all special exceptions. The evidence supporting each factor is in

italics:

(1) The use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare;

There is no evidence that the development of the site as a residential PUD

will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare.

(2) The location, nature, and height of each building, wall, and fence, the nature and extent of landscaping on the site, and the location, size, nature, and intensity of each phase of the use

10

and its access roads will be compatible with the appropriate and orderly development of the district in which it is located;

The site is zoned residential, it will be developed as residential, and it is

surrounded by residential uses. The use will be compatible with the district

in which it is located.

(3) Operations related to the use will be no more objectionable with regard to noise, fumes, vibration, or light to nearby properties than operations in other uses allowed under this article;

There is no evidence that the noise, fumes, vibration, or light to nearby

properties will be more objectionable than operations in other uses allowed

under the Code.

(4) The proposed use will not conflict with an existing or programmed public facility, public service, school, or road;

Mr. Fury and Mr. Boyd testified that the use will not conflict with an

existing or programmed public facility, public service, school, or road.

(5) The proposed use has the written recommendations and comments of the Health Department and the Office of Planning and Zoning;

Mr. Fury testified in favor of the application. The Health Department has

no objection to the granting of the requested special exception.

(6) The applicant has presented sufficient evidence of public need for the use;

The applicant has presented sufficient evidence of public need for the use.

Applicant’s Exhibit 6 entitled “Market Assessment – Wade Property–

February 2041 prepared by RKG Associates, Inc., shows that there is a

need for the proposed housing in the area which contains the Ft. Meade

military facilities, the casino planned for Arundel Mills, the Baltimore

Washington Medical Center, and the Washington – Baltimore urban areas.

11

(7) The applicant has presented sufficient evidence that the use will meet and be able to maintain adherence to the criteria for the specific use;

The applicant has presented sufficient evidence that it can maintain

adherence to the criteria for a residential PUD on the subject property.

(8) The application will conform to the critical area criteria for sites located in the critical area; and

The property is not located in the critical area.

(9) The administrative site plan demonstrates the applicant's ability to comply with the requirements of the Landscape Manual.

The applicant has presented sufficient evidence to show that it will be able

to comply with the requirements of the Landscape Manual.

Therefore, I conclude that the applicant has complied with the requirements

of § 18-16-304 and is entitled to the special exception requested.

It is important to point out that the applicant has not asked for any variances

to the requirements of § 18-12-201 or § 18-16-304.

ORDER

PURSUANT to the application of Snyder Development Corporation,

petitioning to allow a Planned Unit Development on property comprising 44.88

acres; and

PURSUANT to the notice, posting of the property, and public hearing and

in accordance with the provisions of law, it is this 11th day of July, 2014,

ORDERED, by the Administrative Hearing Officer of Anne Arundel

County, that the applicant’s request to allow a Planned Unit Development on

property comprising 44.88 acres located along the east side of Old Mill Boulevard,

12

south of Elvaton Road, Millersville, and identified as Lots 1 and 2 of Parcel 274

and Parcel 279 in Block 20 on Tax Map 16, as shown on Sheet 4 of 4 of County

Exhibit 2, is hereby granted;

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, by the Administrative Hearing Officer

of Anne Arundel County, that the Applicant’s request to phase the development of

the property pursuant to the provisions of § 18-16-304(b) is hereby granted, and

the applicant is given three (3) years from the date of this Decision and Order to

obtain a building permit and six (6) years from the date of this Decision and Order

to complete construction in accordance with the permit.

Furthermore, County Exhibit 2, referenced in this decision, and County

Exhibit 7, the Design Manual for Wade’s Grant, are incorporated herein as if fully

set forth and made a part of this Order.

The foregoing special exception is subject to the following conditions:

A. The applicant shall comply with the instructions and necessary approvals

from the Permit Application Center, the Department of Health, and the

Critical Area Commission.

B. The applicant shall comply with the bulk regulations found in § 18-12-203,

including but not limited to submitting specific development and design

standards to be approved by the Permit Application Center.

C. The applicant shall satisfy agency comments at subdivision.

D. All parking shall comply with Title 3 of Article 18 of the Anne Arundel

County Code.

E. The applicant shall comply with any setback and/or buffer requirements

that apply to the property.

13

F. The applicant shall comply with County Exhibit 7 – Design Guide Manual

for Wade’s Grant.

G. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Landscape

Manual.

H. The Office suggests that the applicant take into consideration, if possible,

an increase of the buffers between the subject property and surrounding

residential properties.

NOTICE TO APPLICANT Within thirty days from the date of this Decision, any person, firm, corporation, or governmental agency having an interest therein and aggrieved thereby may file a Notice of Appeal with the County Board of Appeals. § 18-16-405(a) is modified by this Decision and Order to allow the applicant three (3) years from the date of this Decision and Order to obtain a building permit and six (6) years from the date of this Decision and Order to begin construction in accordance with the permit. Thereafter, the special exception shall not expire so long as (1) construction proceeds in accordance with the permit or (2) a record plat is recorded among the land records pursuant to the application for subdivision, the applicant obtains a building permit within one year after recordation of the plat, and construction proceeds in accordance with the permit. If this case is not appealed, exhibits must be claimed within 60 days of the date of this Order, otherwise they will be discarded.