PUBLIC HEARING Variance Application APP2005-00842, Christopher Garmer The applicant is seeking a ten-foot variance from the front setback requirement to construct a covered porch over the front entry area located at 1505 Gerard Street. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Mr. Garmer presented his request. Mr. Garmer explained the reason for his request. He stated that the proposed covered porch would provide some protection from the sun and inclement weather. Mr. Garmer noted that his property is located in the Rockshire subdivision under which the Planned Residential Unit (PRU) was created. He stated that encroachments into the front setback are common within the neighborhood. Therefore, any type of structure could not be built without requesting a variance. Mr. Garmer presented photos of five other houses in the neighborhood that have front porch structures. He submitted the photos into the record as Exhibit 2. In response to the Board, Ms. Hall explained the conditions peculiar to the property because of the fact that the Planning Commission approved placement of the original houses under the PRU application for the subdivision. In addition, there were no perimeters set for additions/improvements to the houses in the Rockshire subdivision. Therefore, it is very difficult for the residents in the subdivision to do anything to the front of their properties. Mr. Garmer explained that the fact that his house faces a large park across the street from his house and, as a result, there is a lot of southern exposure and no shade from that side of the street. He stated that without a covered porch, the front of their house is affected by the sun and inclement weather. Mr. Hill pointed out that the house sits on a moderate curb. Therefore, the street front does not have a straight view up and down the street. Mr. Garmer stated that that is correct. He said he could not see his neighbors’ properties if he is looking out his front window because of the angle on which his house is positioned on his property and because he lives directly across from the park. Mr. Deitchman questioned whether the large tree located just left of the front of Mr. Garmer’s house would be affected by the construction. Mr. Garmer replied that the tree would not be disturbed. There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. Special Exception Application SPX2005-00352, Tamar & David Pinto The applicants are seeing special exception approval to increase the number of children being cared for by their existing home childcare operation from eight to twelve children, located in the R-75 (single family detached, residential) zone. The applicant are currently licensed by the State of Maryland Child Care Administration to care for up to eight children in their home at 5 Rollins Court. Note, one of the children being cared for by the applicants is their three-year old son. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Mr. and Mrs. Pinto presented their request. She stated that she has been a certified teacher for 12 years. She said she has three children of her own, ages 11, 7 and 3 years, and she currently cares for seven children, including her 3-year-old child, in her home. She is asking for approval to increase the number of children up to 12 children, which is the maximum amount for a childcare center. Ms. Pinto stated that her three children are included in the 12 children, which makes a difference of only two more children. Currently, she has seven non-relative children and she is asking for nine including her own three children. She would have 10 students in her home, if her special exception were approved. Ms. Pinto presented a chart to show the Commission all the houses surrounding her property. She stated that the neighbors shown on the chart have submitted letters of support with the exception of one neighbor. Ms. Pinto noted that four families are home during the day and have no problem with the application. Her childcare center would be closed six weeks out of the year and is open from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., which is not during the rush hour so that it would make traffic an issue. She explained that her childcare center is a Jewish educational daycare with mostly Israelis registered. She stated that there are a large number of families wishing to enroll their children in her daycare. Many parents can walk their children to her house. Mrs. Pinto submitted additional letters of support into the record as Exhibit 2. In response to the Board, Mrs. Pinto stated that four residents on the court stay home during the day. Those would be the residents most impacted by her day care center operation and those residents support her special exception. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Mrs. Pinto stated that some children walk to her day care center. Mrs. Pinto explained that there are many families living in Rollins Park community, who have come from Israel to work at the National Institutes of Health for a three to five year period. She said that many children who attend her day care operation are from that community. Mrs. Pinto stated that she is aware that there are a few letters of opposition. Mr. Chasten informed the Board that the letters of opposition are included in their brief books. Mrs. Pinto stated that Mr. Greenberg’s backyard faces her backyard. Mr. Greenberg is only concerned about the value of his property. Mr. Hill inquired when the Pintos began their day care operation. Mrs. Pinto replied that they began the operation about one year ago. Mr. Greenberg purchased his house last July. Mr. Greenberg attended the Planning Commission last week and stated that he had no complaints about the operation. He did not know the daycare was there until she introduced herself to him after she submitted her application to the City. Mrs. Pinto submitted two letters into the record as Exhibit 3 from two different realtors stating that a day care facility such as hers does not project negatively on the property values of the neighborhood. Mrs. Pinto presented six colored pictures of their backyard illustrating that there is no visibility problem between her backyard and Mr. Greenberg’s backyard. Mrs. Pinto explained that the other letter of opposition from neighbors who live in the community stated their concern regarding traffic issues. Mrs. Pinto stated that with the addition of only two children would not increase the traffic on the court. She said some children are walked to her facility and some are driven. Mrs. Pinto sated that they feel that the childcare center is beneficial to those families living in close proximity to the center. Mrs. Pinto pointed out that Mr. and Mrs. Kedem who live at 3 Rollins Court, oppose the childcare center. There concerns regard traffic, safety of the children, and a bad experience with a neighbor who was a car dealer who brought his cars to the court and congested the court, a previous operator of the home day care damaged a parked car, and the day care facility’s affect on their property value.
Mrs. Pinto stated that the day care does not operate during rush hour, and it will be closed six weeks in the summer as well as all Federal and Jewish holidays, which leaves about nine and a half months that the day care is in operation. In response to the Board, Mrs. Pinto explained that the hours of operation are from 9:00 am to 3:30 pm. An option would be that a few children would arrive at 8:30 am and leave at 4:00 pm. The Board discussed concerns regarding whether the special exception is in compliance with the three findings of fact, that the special exception does not run with the land, a need for additional staff for two additional children, and if the child care center became more successful, would the applicants change to a building offsite, and whether the application complies with Section 25-355(a) requiring the Board to make four additional findings. Mrs. Pinto spoke to those findings and explained that she would comply with those conditions. In response to Mr. Hill, Mrs. Pinto stated that the main reason why parents chose to enroll their children in her day care center would be the curriculum. She also explained that it is very rare to have the parent arrive at the same time. The parents who drive their children to her center park on the driveway or in front of her house. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Mrs. Pinto stated that three children walk and four children are driven to the center. The following citizens testified in favor of the special exception: 1. Tali Meshorer testified that she and her family live at 341 Congressional Lane and her two-year old daughter attends the childcare center and will be continuing there next year. She stated that Mrs. Pinto incorporates Jewish values and culture into the daily curriculum. She stated that her neighborhood attracts many families with young children and Mrs. Pinto’s childcare center answers a very deep need for a day care that is within walking distance, as many families cannot afford two cars. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Mrs. Meshorer stated that she has seen no traffic congestion and there is adequate parking on the court. 2. Liran Carmel testified that he and his family live at 387 Congressional Lane and came from Israel to the USA to pursue a postdoctoral research in the National Institutes of Health. One of their primary concerns was to provide their two-year old son with a high quality Jewish education. This day care center more than satisfies this concern because the center gives a warm, rich and supportive education to their son. This day care center is located at close proximity, within a walking distance from their home and it plays a major education center for the neighborhood’s children. In addition to this, they find it very convenient to have the possibility of walking their son to the day care, when the weather allows. This is a day care with high educational standards for Hebrew speaking children with a slow and regimented exposure to the English language. The following citizens testified in opposition to the special exception: 1. Benjamin Kedem, 3 Rollins Court, testified that he is a professor at the University of Maryland and he and his wife have lived in the Court for almost 20 years. Mr. Kedem stated that he and his wife are concerned with safety. He said that they had two very bad experiences on the Court over the years. One bad experience is that the owner of the previous daycare collided with his car and caused extensive damage to the car. It was lucky that no one was in the car at the time. Mr. Kedem noted that another neighbor was a car dealer and he would bring many cars and park them on this very small court. Mr. Kedem said that he also spoke to neighbors on the court and he believes that those neighbors supporting this application are not support but indifference. One neighbor informed him that she felt intimated. The neighbors at 4 Rollins Court – one is against the application and the husband has no opinion. Mr. Kedem explained that he is very concerned about the traffic on the court as well as the impact on the value of his property. Mr. Kedem stated that he would like the parents to park somewhere else other than on the court. They could park on Rollins Avenue. Mrs. Kedem stated that she is a teacher at the Jewish Day School and she has noticed the difference when there was no daycare center on the court. She said she is very concerned about the safety of the children and the increase of traffic on the court. She stated that parking on Rollins Avenue would be a great help to lessen the traffic on the court. In response to Mr. Hill, Mr. Kedem stated that he is not bothered by any noise from the daycare center. The Board further discussed the hours of play outside, staggering of arrival and departure times to the center, options for staff and parents to park on Rollins Avenue, and the hours of operation of the daycare center. David Pinto stated that the parent parking outside of the court would not be an option, especially in inclement weather. There are only two additional children. Mr. Deitchman discussed crafting the conditions to limit the number of children as well as putting a time limit on the special exception to five or six years due to the fact that conditions change during the years with the childcare center. In response to the Board, Mr. Chasten recommended that the applicants come back to the Board in six years to provide the Board with an update of the number of children in the childcare center. In addition, a parking plan could be recommended.
Mr. and Mrs. Pinto agreed to the recommendations and they would provide a parking plan that would be agreeable to the neighbors on the court. Mr. Kedem commented that the court is very narrow and some days there are cars parked on both sides of the court, which makes it very difficult to drive out of the court those mornings. There being no one else to speak for or against the special exception application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. DECISIONS Variance Application APP2005-00842, Christopher Garmer Mr. Schwartzman moved, seconded by Mr. Deitchman to approve Variance Application APP2005-00842, Christopher Garmer per staff recommendations and subject to a condition that reads, “That the lot’s position on a curbed street has no affect on neighboring properties and established street lines and this condition is unique to the property.” The motion passed unanimously. Special Exception Application SPX2005-00352, Tamar & David Pinto Mr. Deitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Schwartzman to approve Special Exception Application SPX2005-00352, Tamar & David Pinto per staff recommendations and subject to modification of Condition 2 to state the hours of operation are 8:30 am to 4:30 pm; add Condition 4 that reads “That a parking plan be developed that should include such items as: an unoccupied driveway or staggered times of arrival and that be reviewed with the City, and, Condition 5 would read “This Special Exception is granted for six years from the date of grant and the applicants are required to come back in front of the Board of Appeals comes with no prejudice. The motion passed unanimously. MINUTES Mr. Schwartzman moved, seconded by Mr. Deitchman to approve the minutes of Meeting Nos. 2-05, 3-05 and 4-05 as amended. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Hill stated that there is funding in the CIP for the televised coverage of the Board of Appeals and Historic District Commission meetings in the future. Mr. Deitchman suggested that before the hearings begin that there is a general introduction regarding the purpose of the Board of Appeals, particularly during the first months the Board is being televised. The Board discussed concerns regarding meeting schedules, and time limit for the speakers. Mr. Chasten informed the Board that Montgomery County has decided to circumvent the process and begin building Richard Montgomery High School. They will not discuss their plans with the City. The Board discussed matters concerning the County’s violating the special exception conditions with regard to building the new Richard Montgomery High School. Mr. Hill said he would like to set up a time to meet with the City Attorney to discuss this issue. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 11:55 am. NOTE: Should further details of this hearing be required, a tape recording of the meeting is available. The Planning Division maintains a tape of the meeting for a period not less than one year from the date of each meeting. | 
