News Release: Forest Conservation variance request for Carroll County Regional Airport denied
For more information, contact: Vivian D. Laxton, Public Information Administrator, 410-386-2973
For Immediate Release
Forest Conservation variance request denied
Related:
20070921 Request for variance from the Forest Conservation Code for the Carroll County Regional Airport and Carroll County Regional Airport
Other options would eliminate need for variance
November 13, 2007 – Hearing Officer Steven D. Powell today denied a request from Carroll County Government for a variance to the Carroll County Forest Conservation Ordinance that would have allowed for the harvest of timber at Carroll County Regional Airport. In his decision, Mr. Powell writes that staff should have considered other options:
“The Board of County Commissioners as a matter of policy prefers that all County projects comply with the strict terms of federal, State and County law and that variances be sought in only the most extraordinary of situations. In this case, I believe staff may comply with County law through release of easement and afforestation elsewhere which would obviate the need for a variance.”
The County’s Chief of Administrative Services, Cynthia Parr, requested the variance on September 12, 2007, for the timbering of 3.75 acres of trees in a Forest Conservation Plan easement. Those trees were part of approximately 6 acres that need to be harvested before the Federal Aviation Administration will allow operation of a light system designed to increase safety during landing of aircraft.
Mr. Powell, the County’s Chief of Staff, suggested that the Forest Conservation Easement be released, an alternate site for reforestation be designated so that the harvest can take place. “I believe that the County will actually achieve an overall enhanced environmental benefit in greater harmony with the purposes and intent” of the County’s Code.
Staff has 30 days to appeal the decision, if it should choose to do so, to the Commissioners or to an appeals board appointed by the Board of County Commissioners.
# # #
20071113 Decision on Request for Variance from Forest Conservation
November 13, 2007
Ms. Cynthia Parr, Chief
Office of Administrative Services
225 N. Center Street
Westminster, Maryland 21157
Re: Decision ~ Request for Variance from Forest Conservation
Variance No. V-FC-07-001
Dear Ms. Parr:
On September 12, 2007, you submitted an application for a variance to the Carroll County Forest Conservation Ordinance (Variance No. V-FC-07-001). A copy is attached for reference. Specifically, the application requested a reduction in the final forest basal area from 70 square feet to 25 square feet per the submitted Forest Stewardship Plan in order to accommodate the safe operation of the airport PAPI light system. The Bureau of Resource Management staff summary dated September 21, 2007 additionally summarized that approximately 6 acres of forest were slated for a timber harvest and of that 6 acres approximately 3.75 acres are protected via a Forest Conservation Plan. The State Forestry Board approved the timber harvest with the condition that a variance be obtained to the Carroll County Forest Conservation Technical Manual to allow the post basal harvest area to be 25 square feet instead of the required 70 square feet.
On October 16, 2007, a hearing was held whereby you and pertinent County staff presented evidence and testimony regarding the requested variance. Additionally, members of the public in attendance were permitted to present questions or testimony and evidence regarding the variance as well. Following the public hearing, the public record was left open for a period of 5 business days for the receipt of additional written testimony or evidence from the public.
On October 19, 2007, I submitted a list of additional written questions to staff for consideration based on issues that were raised at the hearing. Staff provided answers to the supplemental questions within 10 days as requested. A copy of my questions and the staff answers are attached for reference.
The variance request in this matter is made under Chapter 115 of the County Code of Public Local Laws and Ordinances. Specifically, Section 115-14 states that a variance may be granted if exceptional circumstances exist such that:
(1) Strict adherence to the provisions of this chapter could result in unnecessary hardship or environmental degradation;
2) The project is wholly in response to the regulatory requirements of another federal, state or local law or consent order and is intended to result in impact mitigation or environmental enhancement;
(3) It can be proven that some action associated with the project will result in measurable environmental enhancement that can be equated to the estimated benefit which would have been achieved if the technical requirement that the applicant is requesting relief from would have been accomplished; or
(4) It can be proven that adherence to the technical requirement would not be necessary to fulfill the purpose of this chapter.
Additionally, an applicant for a variance must:
(1) Describe the special conditions or exceptional circumstances peculiar to the property which would cause the undue hardship or that prevent the applicant from complying with this chapter with on-site or off-site mitigation and any evidence that compliance would result in an environmentally degraded condition on or off site;
(2) Demonstrate in sufficient detail that the granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant a special privilege that would be denied to other applicants;
(3) Demonstrate in sufficient detail that the variance request is not based on conditions or circumstances which are the result of actions by the applicant;
(4) Demonstrate in sufficient detail that the request does not arise from a conditions relating to land or building use, permitted or nonconforming, on a neighboring property; and
(5) Demonstrate in sufficient detail that the granting of a variance will not adversely affect water quality or result in an environmentally degraded condition on or off site.
Having reviewed all of the testimony and evidence presented in light of the required variance factors, I hereby make the following findings and decision. Staff presented adequate justification for the need for a timber harvest in the area in question; however, the evidence presented failed to take into consideration the possibility of mitigating the tree harvest to minimize the environmental degradation to occur or to even enhance the environmental status in the area in question. Further, staff failed to consider other administrative processes such as releasing the easement and mitigation elsewhere.
The Board of County Commissioners as a matter of policy prefer that all County projects comply with the strict terms of federal, State and County law and that variances be sought in only the most extraordinary of situations. In this case, I believe staff may comply with County law through release of easement and afforestation elsewhere which would obviate the need for a variance.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the request for variance is hereby denied. It is my understanding that in the instant matter the timber harvest may be accomplished without a variance by amending the existing Forest Conservation Plan to release the harvested area from protection and designating an alternate area for reforestation or afforestation. By conducting the timber harvest in this manner without a variance, I believe that the County will actually achieve an overall enhanced environmental benefit in greater harmony with the purposes and intent of Chapter 115.
Pursuant to Section 115-17, you may appeal the denial of this variance to the Board of County Commissioners or a Board of Appeals appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. Any such appeal must be filed within 30 days of the date of this decision and must clearly state the grounds upon which the appeal is based.
Sincerely,
Steven D. Powell
Hearing Officer
Encl.
