Quotes from Becker v. Anne Arundel County, No. 1097
September Term, 2006
On direct examination, he stated that he wanted to build a
retirement home for himself and his wife, who has “chronic Lyme
Disease and we wanted to have a handicap accessible home with a
master bedroom on the first floor.” When examined by the Board,
and asked why he and his wife would not instead try to remodel
the existing house on Parcel 1 to suit their needs, Mr. Becker
responded “[w]ell, we really don’t like the design of the house,
the style of the house. It’s not handicap accessible the way it
is. And there’s too many stairs. But primarily we just don’t
like the house. We’d like to build our own little dream house,
if you will.” Mr. Becker also testified that in 2002, both he
and Mrs. Becker cleared some “sticker bushes” on their property
with hand clippers.
The interior of the house was to consist of 3 bedrooms, with 2 guest bedrooms on the second floor, and with the master bedroom and the majority of the living space on the first floor. The asserted reason for the larger first floor living space was that Mrs. Becker has Lyme Disease.
9
“The Petitioners noted that one of the property owners has
Lyme disease, which impacts her health. However, the variance
standards require that the focus must be on the physical
characteristics of the land – not the physical characteristics of
the humans that might inhabit the land.”
Appellants contend that the Board:
1) applied an incorrect and illegal standard in requiring
appellants to prove that the requested variances were the
“absolute minimum necessary;”
2) failed to make reasonable accommodations for Mrs.
Becker’s physical disability;
Furthermore, appellants and the County argue that the Board did not take into account Mrs. Becker’s disability.
Appellants complain that the Board “failed to consider Mrs.
Becker’s physical disability and failed to grant any
accommodation as required by the law based on her physical
limitations.” Mr. Becker testified that his wife has chronic
Lyme disease and that they wanted to build a home with handicap
access. Our review of the record did not reveal any evidence of
an existing disability, however, or any evidence as to Mrs.
Becker’s future health needs, other than the implication that she
would require handicap access. Mr. Becker also stated that he
and Mrs. Becker did not like the home in which they were currently living.
There was also evidence that Mrs. Becker had engaged in clearing bushes from the property. The Board, in a footnote, acknowledged that Mrs. Becker has Lymes’s Disease, “which impacts her health.” The Board stated, however, that the variance standards focus on “the physical characteristics of the land-not the physical characteristics of the humans that might inhabit the land.” (emphasis in original).
On remand, in determining whether appellants’ proposal met
the variance criteria and, specifically, whether appellants would
be denied reasonable and significant use of the entire Parcel 2,
the Board must consider appellants’ likely disability, if any,
and make appropriate findings. See Mastandrea v. North, 361 Md.
107, 136 (2000).
Source- http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/cosa/2007/1097s06.pdf