The City of Rockville Board of Appeals convened in closed session at the Red Brick Courthouse, 29 Courthouse Square at 9:00 a.m., Saturday, June 4, 2005. Executive Session - Pursuant to Section 10-508(a)(7) of the State Government Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, the Board of Appeals will hold an Executive Session at 9:00 a.m. to consult with City Attorney Staff on the disposition of Special Exception SPX2003-00329 & Zoning Variance APP2003-00795, Montgomery County Public Schools – a request to construct a new Richard Montgomery High School and exceed the maximum building height of 35 feet required in the R-60 Zone, by 13 feet. The City of Rockville Board of Appeals convened in open session at the Red Brick Courthouse, 29 Courthouse Square at 10:00 a.m., Saturday, June 4, 2005.
PUBLIC HEARING Variance Application APP2005-00843, William Conley The applicant is requesting approval for a variance from the requirement that accessory buildings not exceed 600 square feet at 334 Howard Avenue. An Affidavit of Posting was not submitted into the record at this meeting. Mr. Conley presented his request. Mr. Conley explained that he would like to build an accessory building that would measure 264 square feet more that the 600 square feet allowed in the R-60 Zone. He submitted a letter signed by his neighbors (in support of his proposal) as Exhibit 1. The Board and staff discussed the accessory building requirements, subject property’s lot size, and the size of proposed accessory building. In response to the Board, Ms. Hall explained that accessory buildings are limited to ten percent of the smallest lot allowed in the zone or twenty-five percent of the rear yard. This lot is larger than most lots found in the R-75 and R-90 Zones as well as some in the R-150 Zone and is limited in size to an accessory building that could be constructed on a lot that is nearly one-third its size. She noted that this property is located within the R-60 Zone, where a 600 square foot accessory building is the maximum size allowed in the zone. The applicant would like to construct a 24-foot wide by 36-foot deep accessory building that would contain a total of 864 square feet, which is 264 square feet more than is allowed in the R-60 Zone. In response to Mr. Hill, Mr. Conley explained that he would use this accessory building for two antique cars, storage and a work area. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Conley if he was aware of the City’s Zoning Ordinance requirement that vehicles cannot be parked on top of surfaces that are not paved for purpose of a vehicle. Mr. Conley replied that he is aware of the requirement. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Mr. Conley said that he just wants to get his garage constructed and he would not use his cars on a daily basis. He noted that he cannot afford a driveway at this time. Mr. Schwartzman questioned whether the City would, as part of the building permit,
require a driveway. Ms. Hall replied that it depends on how it is presented to the City. If it is just an accessory building, there is no requirement for a driveway. If it were a garage, then Mr. Conley would have to have an impervious surface in order to drive a car to the garage. Ms. Hall pointed out that one is not supposed to drive across grass or park on grass. The Board and staff discussed concerns regarding the width of the current driveway, function of the accessory building, and the location of the accessory building on the rear of the property. Mr. Hill questioned Mr. Conley regarding the conditions peculiar to his property. Mr. Conley explained that his lot is 16,650 square feet compared to the 6,000 square feet associated with R-60 lots. In response to Mr. Sternstein, Mr. Conley stated that he has many tools and needs additional space for his two antique cars and a workspace. Mr. Conley stated that he is agreeable to staff’s recommendations in the staff report.
The following citizen testified in favor of the application: Mr. Farrell, 328 Howard Avenue, stated that approximately 11 years ago he came before the Board and asked for a variance to build a garage, which is the same size garage that Mr. Conley is requesting. Mr. Farrell asked the Board if Mr. Conley could put down crushed rock as a temporary driveway this year and next summer he would have the funds to asphalt the existing driveway and extend it to the proposed accessory building. Mr. Hill stated that the Board has no authority to overrule the City’s building code that would operate for driveways. Ms. Hall explained that, in order to get another surface approved, Mr. Conley would have to get the permission from the Director of Public Works. Mr. Hill informed the audience that the Board addresses land use, conformance and impact on the neighbors at this hearing. The Board does not have authority to decide on building codes and construction. He stated that it is really a separate consideration.
There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. Special Exception Application SPX2005-00353, Shannon Allcock The applicant is requesting approval to permit an auto filling station at Gude Drive and Southlawn Lane in the I-1 Zone. An Affidavit of Posting was not submitted into the record at this meeting. Mr. Sternstein recused himself because his law office has been in contact with the law firm handling this application. Mr. Hill stated that the Board heard this matter in October 1999. He disclosed that he was a voting member of the Board at that time and sat on that item. Mr. Hill said he does not feel that would present grounds to consider any bias in the current proceedings. Mr. Hill pointed out that the applicable Zoning Ordinance has changed related to this application since it came before the Board, previously. He noted that the requirement to find a need for the service within the City boundaries has since been dropped in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Chasten stated that staff provided a copy of the power point presented at the Planning Commission meeting because there are no technical means to present it to the Board at this meeting. Jody Kline, Attorney with Miller, Miller & Canby, presented the applicant’s request. Mr. Kline stated that the application is identical to the application that was approved by the Board on October 1999. Mr. Kline spoke about the zoning history of the site. He said that all the conditions in the staff report are acceptable. The Planning Commission did recommend that the applicant provide the Board with the “phase one environmental analysis” which the applicant noted had been done for the previous special exception request. The Board discussed the zoning changes from the County’s I-2 Zone to the City’s I-1 Zone. Shannon Allcock, applicant, stated that he has been involved with this property since 1997. Mr. Allcock talked about his ordeal while going through the events of changing the zoning of his property. He said there was more confusion than anything else during those years. In response to Mr. Deitchman regarding the Planning Commission’s concern about the location of the bus shelter, Mr. Allcock explained that, since 1999, the entire area has changed. He noted that several of the Commissioners drove by the area and did not see anybody waiting for the bus. Mr. Allcock said that the Commission questioned whether the bus shelter should be located elsewhere on Gude Drive in order to serve greater numbers of persons utilizing Ride-On Transit services within the immediate site. Mr. Allcock stated that he would provide a sidewalk all the way to the end of the property within the landscaped area. The Board discussed concerns regarding the location of the bus shelter, stormwater management plan, ancillary sales, parking spaces required to accommodate retail sales on the site, and hours of operation. Mr. Hill questioned Mr. Allcock’s view on the improvements he is required to do on Gude Drive. Mr. Allcock said that he wanted this service station for so long and, with the City staff who has been unbelievably supportive, he has agreed to whatever they have asked for. He noted that one of the most difficult requirements is the construction of a right turn lane, which, from an expense standpoint, has concerned him the most. He said he was hoping that the other property owners would assist with the cost of constructing that right turn lane. In response to Mr. Hill, Mr. Allcock stated that he is not asking for any relief of the conditions stated in the staff report. Mr. Deitchman commented on Condition 5. Mr. Chasten explained that the reason this condition ??? is that when this application was originally brought before the Board, the property had not been annexed. Therefore, staff included that as part of the Board’s recognition that the subject property was still in the process of being annexed to the City. Ray Norris with Maddox Engineers presented the site plan. He discussed a newly approved stormwater management plan. All the stormwater eventually connects into a County system. The system is underground. The details of the stormwater management plan will be available at the use permit stage. Mr. Norris stated that he had discussions with the County regarding improvements such as stormwater management, the bus shelter and sidewalk frontage because a portion of the property is in the County. Mr. Hill commented that Forest Conservation is generous on this site. Mr. Norris replied that there is some mishmash on this subject because there are two jurisdictions involved. He noted that this would be worked out. Mr. Deitchman inquired whether this gas station would be a discount service station that could cause stacking on the street. Mr. Allcock replied that his gas station would not carry low-priced gas. Mr. Chasten stated that one of the findings speaks to the traffic generated by the gas station would not overburden area roadways. He noted it is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that stacking would not occur. Mr. Hill pointed out his concern regarding the safety of storing fuel tanks on the site. Mr. Norris explained that, with today’s technology, safety issues with the structure of the tanks as well as the environment have been resolved. Stephen Petersen, Traffic Consultant, addressed the traffic noted that to mitigate the potential impact on the level of service, at which the intersection now operates, the improvements proposed in 1999 and now, will more than offset site generated trips in both the morning and evening peak hours. Mr. Petersen explained to the Board the traffic pattern on Southlawn Lane, Gude Drive, Muncaster Mill Road, which are communal routes that are very high peak in both the morning and evening peak hours. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Mr. Allcock presented the “phase one environmental analysis” which was done for the entire site for the previous special exception request. Mr. Chasten stated that Commissioner Britton had raised concerns with the applicant about the possibility of the presence of hazardous and/or harmful materials on site, which might require clean up prior to site development activity. Mr. Chasten stated that Mr. Deitchman expressed concern whether there was anything found on the site previously that would be of an issue, and that was Commissioner’s Britton main concern as well. The Board discussed the revisions of some of the conditions stated in the staff report. Mr. Norris commented on Condition 3 regarding installing street trees on the site’s northern property line to serve as a buffer/screening between the planned site use and neighboring paper recycling business. Mr. Chasten stated that the County would not have jurisdiction over those trees on the site. He recommended adding a phrase “in conjunction with the County and the City.” Mr. Deitchman recommended modifying Condition 5 because it is not a condition of the applicant. Mr. Chasten stated that this condition could be included in the use permit stage. There being no one else to speak for or against the special exception application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. DECISIONS Variance Application APP2005-00843, William Conley Mr. Deitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Schwartzman to approve Variance Application APP2005-00843 with staff recommendations. The motion passed unanimously. Special Exception Application SPX2005-00353, Shannon Allcock Mr. Deitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Schwartzman to approve Special Exception Application SPX2005-00353, Shannon Allcock per staff recommendations as well as the Planning Commission’s recommendation “to include the review of the Phase One Environmental Report”. Approval is also subject to the modification of Condition 2 by adding “The site landscape plan is also conducted in consultation with Montgomery County Department of Public Works and Transportation”; Condition 5 by removing this condition and make it a reference to staff to work with Montgomery County Department of Public Works and Transportation in terms of agreement for future improvements of the Southlawn Lane/Gude Drive intersection. Condition 8 – the Board direct staff that the applicant be allowed to work with other property owners who may have already contributed to the fund to improve the Southlawn Lane/Gude Drive intersection; and, Condition 9 – add to the end of the last sentence “A bus shelter must be located so as not to obstruct the sidewalk/pedestrian path and may be placed at an alternate location on-site or off-site in consultation with Ride-On Transit.” The motion passed on a vote of 3-0. MINUTES Mr. Schwartzman moved, seconded by Mr. Deitchman to approve the minutes of Meeting No. 5-05 as amended. The motion passed on a vote of 2-0-1 with Mr. Sternstein abstaining. OLD BUSINESS Request for Reconsideration and Rehearing of Special Exception Application SPX2005-00352, Tamar & David Pinto – a request to increase the number of children being cared for by the existing home day care operation from 8 to 12 children located at 5 Rollins Court. Mr. Chasten stated that Mr. Benjamin Kedem, 3 Rollins Court had requested this Reconsideration, but based on personal circumstance, he decided to formally withdraw his request. Mr. Chasten stated that Mr. Kedem felt that he did not have sufficient time to make a case. In response to Mr. Hill, Mr. Chasten stated that Mr. Kedem withdrew the Reconsideration before notices were sent out to the community. Mr. Chasten stated that the Board has asked staff to reschedule the July 9, 2005 meeting to Thursday, July 14, 2005 at 6:00 pm in the Mayor and Council Chamber in City Hall.
ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 11:30 a.m. 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. | 
