A Westminster official was correct in revoking the permit for the Holy Apostles Charismatic Episcopal Church's plan to build an addition onto its half of a duplex, the city's Board of Zoning Appeals ruled Thursday night after more than 15 total hours of testimony given on three separate nights.
The three-member board upheld the Westminster Zoning Administrator Steve Horn's decision stating that the building permit was issued in error and is invalid. The church will not be permitted to build the addition consisting of worship space on the 300 block of Old New Windsor Road.
It's a decision the church can appeal to Carroll County Circuit Court, yet right after the ruling was delivered at 11:15 p.m. Thursday, church pastor the Rev. Jim Ball said he did not know if they would take further action. He'd have to confer with counsel, he said.
This case has been the most complicated one in terms of time and effort, said Board Chairman Edward Cramer. David and Buff Martin, the couple who live in the duplex unit next door, hired a lawyer. They previously stated that they had not been told of the addition until a few days before the land's excavation began, although church witnesses previously testified that the plans had been in the works since 2011.
The church also had to hire a lawyer. Numerous witnesses were called and public testimony was given at a hearing in June, July and Thursday night.
However, the decision was simple and took less than 30 minutes for the board to reach.
"At the end of the day I'm making my decision based on what the city of Westminster code says," board member Dan Hoff said. "And the city of Westminster code clearly states that if a permit is issued in error, it's not valid. It's null and void."
The building permit was originally issued under a special exception granted at a Board of Zoning Appeals hearing in September 2006. The board allowed the church to utilize the duplex for office space and for Sunday school for about six to 12 children.
"As the Board of Zoning Appeals we are simply charged with looking to the code and the language and the words in the code inform our decisions," board member Laura Matyas said. "Approval of a site plan doesn't trump the permitted use of the permitted uses on that parcel."
Buff Martin said she was happy with the decision.
"I'd like for this to all be done with," she said.
Church attorney Dino C. La Fiandra's case centered around the fact that church officials did everything right legally. They went to Horn to see if they could build the addition. And he signed off on the plans. The church shouldn't be punished for this error, which has burdened it financially, he said.
The Martins' attorney David Bowersox's case focused on the fact that the permit was issued in error and did not fall under the scope of the 2006 special exception.
Hoff stated that he understood why all parties felt "annoyed, frustrated and aggrieved in this situation."
For him, the decision was simple. Horn made an error, and all permits issued in error should be null and void, he said, citing the city's zoning code.
Additionally, Hoff said he felt that the church was also partly to blame.
"I hate to say it, and I'm just going to be blunt, I'm just going to say it," he said. "I almost feel that the church's representatives were trying to get away with something. At the end of the day, I think Mr. Horn erred in issuing his approval, which is indeed very unfortunate. But again I do not believe the church's hands are clean in this regard."
Before the decision was reached Bowersox called his only two witnesses.
Chuck Wisner was the first up. A colleague of Buff Martin's at Sykesville Middle School, he testified that he'd driven past the duplex May 14. He pulled over onto the road's small shoulder and took several pictures, which were offered into evidence. He testified that he could see a pile of dirt and some fencing.
Buff Martin was next and also submitted pictures into evidence. She stated that when she drives past the church's half of the duplex, as she does every day, all she can see from the road is a pile of dirt and an orange fence.
She also testified that she didn't know about the construction until she found a note taped to her door Feb. 18 from Ball. The letter stated construction would start next week on an addition to the duplex to be used for worship space.
"I was just stunned," Martin said at the hearing. "I had almost passed out I was so stunned that they were building a church there."
This was a concern she'd raised at a previous Board of Zoning Appeals hearing in September 2006. It was a concern assuaged at the time by city and church officials. That's because the special exception granted that day had a limited scope.
If the church is permitted to build the addition, Martin testified that she was worried about the market rate of her home.
"I am here because my husband and I have worked very hard for many years to provide for ourselves in our retirement and if we lose the property value on our home, we have lost our ability to take care of ourselves," she said. "However you decide, I will trust your judgment. I feel terrible that this is happening. I'm sorry you have to be part of it. And I'm sorry everybody has to be part of it."
Both attorneys took about an hour each to state their closing arguments. Both La Fiandra and Bowersox used federal and state law and the city's code to make their points.
La Fiandra went first, stating that the zoning administrator is "empowered by law" to make decisions. And his clients reasonably relied on Horn's decisions.
"Is it permissible for the city to revoke the site plan permit when the church has followed all the guidance given by the city officials?" he asked. "There's no allegation that this church has done anything contrary to law."
Additionally, he said that this ordeal has had a placed a financial burden on the church, costing roughly $51,000 for construction and plans thus far. This figure does not include legal costs, he said.
He cited several provisions for why the decision is not allowed to be revoked, asking when the property owner's risk ends.
One centered around a property right in the U.S. Constitution.
"Vested rights protect the permit holder from a consequent government action that would invalidate the permit," he said.
Bowersox later countered that in his closing statements, saying that it's really not a vested rights case because those require a validly issued permit. This permit was not issued validly. It did not fall within the scope of the special exception nor did it meet the criteria for a simplified site plan, which the permit was issued under, he said.
At the end of the hours and nights of testimony, the board agreed.
