Good evening and welcome to the City of Rockville Board of Appeals. I apologize for not being in the chambers, but I had minor surgery on my forehead this morning and I'm supposed to be home so I'm home. Anyway, welcome to those of you in the chamber and to those of you who are viewing by WebEx or by Channel 11 or streaming. My name is Alan Franco. I'm the chair of the Board of Appeals. And without further ado, we will get started. I believe this is Board of Appeals meeting number one dash 2025. And we have a public hearing this evening on variance application, VAR 2025-00124 requesting a variance at 501 Denim Road here in Rockville, Maryland. And I believe Mr. Davis is the planner on this. So Mr. Davis, look forward to hearing from you. Before Mr. Davis gets started, I'm going to go ahead and swear a move. Thank you, Mr. Osick. You could identify yourself for the record. Yes, Christopher Davis with community planning and development services. And will you provide truthful testimony in the evening? I will. Thank you. All right. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the board. As you mentioned, this is a variance application, VAR 2025-00124-4501-DNM Roode. The subject property is outlined in blue on the screen. It is 501-DNM Ro rude. The land use designation for this property is single family residential detached. And the zoning for the property is our 60 corresponding with a single unit detached dwelling residential zone. As you'll see from the image, the property is located at the corner of denim rude and Gilbert rude. It is unique in shape. As you can see, it is of a wedge shape where the front property line and side property line converge narrowing to Denham Road. The specific request this evening by the applicant is a zoning variance from the the rear yard setback requirements in the R60 zone to construct a rear covered porch. Staff's recommendation is approval with conditions. As you'll see from the site plan shown on the screen here, the existing dwelling is shown outlined in gray. with the new porch area outlined in yellow. The new porch will cover an existing wood uncovered porch and will basically cover that existing footprint because of the dimensions and the location of that existing area. It encroaches into the rear yard setback, necessitating the variance. In addition, the applicant proposes a new uncovered deck, immediately adjacent to that. That specific improvement is not subject to the variance this evening. So here are a few images of the existing conditions, as you'll see from the image on the left labeled right. This is a view into the rear of the dwelling where you can see that uncovered existing porch where the new covered porch will basically cover this area in the same footprint. In the image on the right, you can see a rear view of the area to be covered, and you can see the existing access to the home where the applicant can have access to the new covered area or covered porch. So here are the proposed elevations showing that new covered porch. As you can see, it will be enclosed with screens and railing, which will include vinyl materials to match the siding of the existing home. It will also employ a gable roof, again, to be consistent with the design of the existing home. So moving to the specific zoning issues, subject of the variance, Persection 25105, the minimum required rail yard setback is 20 feet and the applicant's specific request is a variance for a setback of 16 feet 7.2 inches to construct the covered porch in the rare yard. So, the staff's review of this application has found that the request does satisfy the standards for granting the variance. Specifically, the variance would not be contrary to the public interest. As highlighted, the new covered porch would basically cover the existing footprint of the existing uncovered porch in the rarer yard. So there would be no further encroachments to the surrounding properties and no further adverse impacts. Furthermore, it maintains the similar building massing and esterioesthetics. And as well, staff has not received any letters of opposition to this specific request. Staff's also found that the requested variance is due to conditions peculiar to the property and not the result of any action taken by the owner. Specifically, we mentioned the unique shape of this particular lot, that wedge shape where the property aligns do converge to a point. It creates a peculiar buildable area that differs from neighboring properties and thus necessitates the request for the variance. As mentioned in the staff report, this particular property and its configuration was established through subdivision by Montgomery County in the 1940s prior to being annexed into the city and of course well before ownership by this applicant. Finding three, that the literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in a practical difficulty. Again, because of the unique property and its shape in the buildable area that's created by that, the specific improvements requested by the owner would be prohibitive without the approval of this variance. Furthermore, granting this variance would allow the applicant to make improvements similar to other properties in the neighborhood. And finally, finding four, the granting of the variance is not inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning ordinances. specifically relief is due to the side characteristics and not any improvements by the owner. And furthermore, approval would enhance livability and residential use of this specific property. So with that analysis, staff does recommend approval of this variance application, the AR 2025-00124, to allow a rear-garde setback of 16 feet 7.2 inches in lieu of the required 20 feet, representing a 3 foot 4.8 inch variance for the construction of a rear-enclosed porch addition subject to the findings and conditions in staff's report. And with that, Mr. Chair, that concludes staff's presentation. Thank you so much, Mr. Davis, for an excellent report. Does any member of the Board of Appeals have any questions for Mr. Davis? Yes, Alan, I first I hope you feel better. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Dijktren. Is there a driveway on this property? Yes. The driveway is located off of Gilbert Road I believe. The applicant can confirm but I believe that's the access to. On the other side of the house where this project is. Correct. Thank you. No questions, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much. I only have one question and this may be out of left field. But do we know what the zoning requirements were when this house was built? Mr. Chair, I don't know the specific zoning requirements at the time. I believe it was a similar single family residential zone, but the specific standard time not aware of at that time. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis. Somewhere somewhere in what I was reading it was a county. Yes, regulations back then not a city set of regulations. That's correct. Yes City kind of took over the zoning well It was annexed obviously the city took over but I was wondering If this would have been allowed as is under the zoning Under which it was built Not that that that really makes any difference today. Okay, we'll move on. Is the applicant present today? Yes. Okay, Mr. Maltese, would you please come to the, to the lectern and Mr. Walslick, if you will, swear Mr. Maltese then. Sir, I figured identify yourself for the record. Yes, I'm James Maltese. And will you provide truthful testimony of the receiving? I will. Thank you, please proceed. Mr. Maltese, I'm sorry that I'm not in the chamber to see you personally, but welcome to the Board of Appeals. And please tell us what you would like to add to anything that Mr. Davis may have said. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Frankl, distinguished board members. I am the homeowner, James Maltese, and I don't have much to add to the great presentation from Mr. Davis. I do want to note to your point, Mr. Dijman, yes. So you can see where the new deck is just sort of beyond that. The existing is where the existing driveway is. And one of the benefits of this, we would sort of, you know, pull the car up, get out, pick the groceries, load them up onto the deck through the and then straight into the back of the house to the kitchen. I do want to give my sincere appreciation to the staff who were very just helpful explaining the process, giving the some guidance and also to the staff in the permit office who identified this issue because I did not additionally do my homework on the setbacks and explained what the requirements were and pointed me in the right direction for the variance process. But I would be happy to answer any questions that you would have of me about the property, about the project, or about the justification for the variance. Thank you, Mr. Maltese. Does any member of the board of the PL-7 in questions for the applicant? Yes, just a brief one. one of the questions we ask is, can you do this project without a variance? You know, is there some other way to do it? And actually, I thought that's why the driveway was important because that's a space that you might have been able to build in, but you don't want to take your driveway. But had you thought about, if you heard about having to get a variance, was there any other way to configure this? Do you not need a variance? Yeah, and so part of the difficulty is that where as Mr. David's mentioned, we have an existing deck at the rear and because that is not a covered living area, it doesn't have to meet the setback and just enclosing that area, we're already over slightly over the line. So the other option would be, well, could we have put it on the east side of the house, which is a little awkward because that's just on the opposite side of our range and our fume hood by the other side of the kitchen and there's say the root system of a large silver maple that's there, which makes it a little, you know, tricky putting the foundation. And then we're also. We would kind of run into the Gilbert road side, fat back as well. So there wasn't a configuration that that we in our contractor could sort of come up with the really met our needs. that wouldn't necessitate a variance in one way or another. And now you've got the enjoyment of going through a variance process too. Yes, as an attorney who works for an agency that deals with reviewing license applications, it's a very interesting to be on this side of the process. Thank you for your answer. Mr. Howard, do you have any questions? Do not, Mr. Chair. Okay, I'd only like to make a comment. I don't have any questions. But this is one of the more weirdly shaped. that we are seen in the years I've been on the Board of Appeals and what's even worse is they didn't cite the house properly. If they had cited the house down towards the bottom of the map you wouldn't have this problem but But that was 70 years ago, and there's nothing we can do about that now. Mr. Walslick is there. Anybody who has come forward, whether by mail, by email is on the line today, or is president of the chambers today, who wishes to speak to the mayor. I will now be asked to speak to the mayor. I will now be asked to speak to the mayor. I will now be asked to speak to the mayor. I will now be asked to speak to the mayor. I will now be asked to speak to the mayor. I will now be asked, Mr. Chair, there is no one. Okay, then the Chair will declare the hearing closed. Thank you, Mr. Maltese. The board will now deliberate. And for once, I'm gonna start. To me, this is a no-brainer. Okay? The house is in the wrong place. That's no fault of the the current homeowner. The lot itself is weirdly shaped. That's not the fault of the homeowner. And I think as as Mr. Davis went through the process of what we need for a variance on this clearly requires a variance on this property to do what the homeowner wishes to do. Anybody have any other thoughts? Well, I think it's good that they're able to use the existing debt to build over that and make it part of the process and I agree I think we got an excellent application and Mr Davis did a very job explaining why a variance is needed. I agree. Usually when we see a corner lot, it's not the back variants we're looking for. It's the other front yard variant. So that's what, immediately when I saw the picture. That's what I thought we were talking about tonight. Just for the record in our materials, it does say the variance is two feet, 4.8 inches, not three feet. So maybe just want to update that documentation, but just for the record, it's three feet, 4.8 inches. Okay, the record is so corrected. The chair would entertain a motion to approve the variance. Mr. Chair I make a motion the grant variance application VAR 2025-00124 based on the recommended findings and conditions noted in the staff report. Is there a second? I second it. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? OK. Variance application VAR 2025-00124 to allow a rear yard setback of 16 feet, 7.2 inches in lieu of the required 20 feet. Meaning it is a 3 foot, 4.8 inch variance for the construction of a rear enclosed porch addition at 501 denim road, subject to the findings and conditions in staff's report. And I believe that ends the hearing. Mr. Maltese, best of luck to you. I know we enclosed a porch on our home several years ago and we lived there three seasons out of the year. So best of luck to you, sir, and thank you for appearing. Good luck. All right. Now I believe that the next item of business is to approve the minutes from our previous meeting. As everyone read the minutes. Yes. Yes. Does anybody have any additions, corrections, changes to the minutes? No, Mr. Chair. No. Then the chair would move that the minutes, and I don't have the package the drunken front of me so I can't say when the date was. I'll say it for you Mr Chair. Approved the meeting minutes for Board of Appeals meeting number four dash 2024 on Wednesday December 18th 2024 thank you mr. Dijayman is there a second that was that was Jim who went for the moment I'm sorry our'm sorry. Our voices are so much. It's hard when you're not there, you know. Yeah, but anyway, I'll second it. Okay, all those in favor of approval of the minutes. I know opposed the minutes of meeting for dash 2024 are approved. And now I believe we need to look at the boards presentation to the mayor and council. And if let me pull up my package here. I'm going to go to the chair. Mr. Chair, if you like, I can give a brief introduction. That would be fine, Mr. Ross. Thank you. The City Clerk's Office has hired a new board and commission coordinator. Her name is Veronica Mitchell and she has been working on kind of formalizing relations with the boards and commissions of the city and the mayor and council and identified various boards and the commission's that the council would like to have an in-person annual report and the board is a lucky winner as being one of those chosen to make a presentation. And so we have been assigned a date of May the 19th as the date of the presentation. So I wanted to make sure that we had at least the beginnings of a PowerPoint that you could discuss at this meeting in advance of that meeting on May 19th. So I put together in the city's new PowerPoint format that reflects or the grant The annual report based on prior annual reports that you all have given and very basic outlining the board's responsibilities under the code and state law and then your accomplishments during calendar year 2024. I did know that there were only three meetings of the board and there were two variance applications that were reviewed and approved. One that was continued and ultimately withdrawn by the applicant and one special exception modification that was also approved. And then traditionally there's been a page for goals and objectives. And these are basically the ones from prior, prior reports. But if there are others that you'd like to highlight, that would be fine. I did note that the zoning order three right is, and that may be something that the board would be interested in kind of tracking and hearing about, but I'd be interested in any comments you have on any aspect of the report. And Chair Frankl would be providing the verbal report at the Mayor and Council meeting on May 19th. Mr. Oslik, it looks good to me. And yes, I think it's important for the Board of Appeals to know what's going on with the changes to the zoning ordinance, because that's something we have to deal with constantly. But I think you have done an excellent job in putting this together. It just looks like we were pretty lazy last year. The only four things come before us. But no, I'll be happy to stand on these power points on May 19. Can I just add that I had given Jim one more goal and objectives and we can put it in different places, but just that we have, and we've always done this timely decisions. So I don't know if we want to say that as a separate bullet or just timely considerations of all applications and bullet one, but I think that's been a strength of this board to not dilly dally. You know, we get to the point and we get a decision. I do appreciate the rebranding. First thing I noticed. That is an R, right? It is. Sorry It is. Is that what that is? Each department has its own accent color and our department community planning is the silver. You will see different versions of the R. And I presume we paid somebody to create this. That is correct. There was a consultant involved. No doubt. Anyway, if nobody has any more comments about the 2024 report to the mayor and council, I don't believe we have any additional business this evening. Mr. Walshlik, do we have any applications yet for the May meeting? No, there are none. Okay. What I mean, it may be too early, but what about for the June meeting? It is not quite the filing deadlines yet, but I'm not aware of any. So we're going to have a, it sounds like I was slow year this year too, but anyway, I thank everybody for the participation and their assistance. And next, the next meeting, I hope to be in the, and the mayor and council chambered with all of you. And at this point, the chair would call for a motion to adjourn. Can I just mention one thing I got some feedback from Nick. We had asked and I guess we had done this as a committee. Can we have the alternate sit on the bench here when we do cases and he would look through to determine if this was allowable. And we talk briefly, but it appears it's not allowable. If I said that correctly, Nick. Yes, absolutely. And I can provide the board with more details, if it would like. But the long and short of it is, you know, after looking at the land use article, a state land use article, and the advice of council memo that was issued to the board of appeals by my predecessor in 2016, I agree with the interpretation that she came to that state law really doesn't allow for the alternate to sit with the body and participate in meetings. So again, happy to answer any questions, but that's, I think my colleague did a good job back in 2016. Thank you very much, Mr. Dume. I think that sort of, that sort of says it all. It's just that we were violating state law for at least 15 years from the board. Well, of course, we don't have an alternate right now anyway. So sort of a moot question for the present. Okay, the chair would once again ask for a motion to adjourn. I make a motion to adjourn. I second. Yeah. Okay, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. No opposed. This meeting is adjourned. you