PUBLIC HEARING Variance Application APP2005-00844, Charles Conley The applicant seeks a variance of four feet from the thirty-foot project perimeter setback requirement within a residential townhouse development in order to construct a twenty-two foot wide by fifteen foot deep elevated, uncovered deck at the rear of a townhouse in the Ashleigh Woods townhouse development at 2029 Ashleigh Woods Court. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted as Exhibit 1. Mr. Conley presented his request. Mr. Conley pointed out that all of the townhomes in Ashleigh Woods have decks. He noted that his property backs up to parkland. Mr. Conley explained that he needs a deck because there is a topography issue (a bank) behind his house. As a result, he and his family are unable to utilize the backyard because of the topography. Mr. Conley submitted an approval letter from the Homeowners Association into the record as Exhibit 2. Mr. Conley stated that his deck would not be contrary to the public interest because the project perimeter setback requirement was put in place in order to protect existing development from encroachment by the proposed development. Since the area adjacent to the proposed deck is unimproved parkland, there are no adjacent developed properties that need protection. Secondly, the variance is requested owing to conditions peculiar to the property and not the result of any action taken by him. He said the 30-foot project perimeter setback is a requirement that may not be waived in approving a Residential Townhouse development. He noted that the adjacent property does not need protection from encroaching development due to its natural state. This is not the result of any action by him. Lastly, the practical difficulty is that without a variance, his proposed deck would be limited to eight feet in depth. A deck of only eight feet in depth is only slightly deeper than a balcony and would have limited function and no room to enjoy the deck. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Mr. Conley stated that the reason for a deck is that they cannot use their backyard because of the topography. He explained that the backyard has little very little green space before the embankment rises 8 or 10 feet and cannot be used or enjoyed. He explained that his townhouse is three levels. The bottom level is the garage and a room he uses as a computer space. The second level is where all his neighbors have their decks so they can observe the natural parkland. Ms. Hall noted that Mr. Conley’s backyard has a severe grade and it remains wet. Ms. Hall explained that the parkland belongs to the HOA. Everyone has a right to use it. Mr. Conley stated that there is an existing door on the second floor that the developer had built primarily for future decks. The Board discussed concerns regarding the measurements of the proposed deck as compared to neighbors’ decks, design of the deck, drainage, and the proper footings for the proposed deck. Mr. Chasten explained the reason why Mr. Conley and his neighbors are locked in with a 30-foot encroachment is that their townhouses are located on the perimeter. He said it is somewhat of a disparagement to allow residents living on the interior to build larger decks and not allow those living on the perimeter to do the same. Ms. Hall stated that these decks really are just about level with the top of the grade in the back yard. If the townhouse did not have the basement opening and if it was flattened out, it would resemble a patio for which there would be no encroachment. She noted that it is odd because the topography is very severe in the way it drops right down to the townhouses. She said it is very wet in the back of those properties. There being no one else to speak for or against the Variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. Zoning Variance Application APP2005-00845, Montgomery County Public Schools The applicant seeks a zoning variance from the 42-inch height limit restriction applicable to a fence, wall, or hedge when located in the front yard area of a subject property. The applicant proposes to construct a 96-inch 8-foot tall screen wall to shield a new emergency generator and other associated equipment in the front yard of the subject property located at the northwest corner of the rear of the existing Board of Education office building at 850 Hungerford Drive. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted as Exhibit 1. James Song with Montgomery County Public Schools presented the applicant’s request to construct an 8-foot tall screen wall to shield a new emergency generator and other associated equipment in the front yard. The wall would hide the generator. He also explained that this is the most feasible location for the generator. He said the generator is tested once a week. The Board discussed concerns regarding the location of the emergency generator, other possible locations to put the generator, the design of the screen wall, whether there would be a roof on the wall, impact on parking, the kinds of equipment that would be enclosed, the location of the enclosure to the sidewalk, and replacement of trees, if removed. Mr. Hill questioned which section of the Carver Educational Services Center (CESC) has been designated in the historic district. Mr. Chasten replied that the area of the site that is subject to this zoning variance request is not located within the site designated historic district. The Board further discussed whether the special exception met the three findings of fact. The Planning Commission recommended denial to the Board based on Condition 2 in the staff report regarding the finding of conditions peculiar to the property and not the result of any actions taken by the applicant. The Commission did not find anything peculiar about the property to warrant granting of a variance. The Board further questioned the applicant regarding the conditions peculiar to the property such as the configuration of the property and the fact that the location selected is the only feasible location for the generator and other associated equipment. There being no one else to speak for or against the Zoning Variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed.
DECISIONS Variance Application APP2005-00844, Charles Conley Mr. Deitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Schwartzman to approve Variance Application APP2005-00844, Charles Conley per staff recommendations with the exception of Condition 2. Mr. Deitchman stated that Condition 2 should read “The topography of the back yard is peculiar due to the rear yard sloping upward from the basement level to an elevation nearly equal with the first floor of the house at or near the rear property line. The motion passed unanimously. Zoning Variance Application APP2005-00845, Montgomery County Public Schools Mr. Schwartzman moved, seconded by Mr. Deitchman to approve Zoning Variance Application APP2005-00845, Montgomery County Public Schools per staff recommendations. He said the three findings of fact have been met. The motion passed on a vote of 2-1 with Mr. Hill voting nay. MINUTES Mr. Schwartzman moved, seconded by Mr. Deitchman to approve the minutes of Meeting No. 6-05 as amended. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Chasten stated that a letter has received by staff from the first Baptist Church of Rockville stating their concern that when they received Scott Parker’s formal letter of approval of their use permit, dated March 25, 2005, they were surprised at one of the conditions contained in that approval. Mr. Chasten stated that Mr. Parker’s letter of approval indicated that the new building cannot and is not to be used nor incorporated into the operation of the church’s childcare center. He said that the Church respectively requests modification of this condition. Mr. Chasten said that the church is concerned that there was a statement made in the use permit that there be no expansion to the new addition (a gymnasium). They want the Board to know that they do not intend to move the WEE Center’s educational, classroom activities, staff, offices, or food service into the building. The church would like the WEE Center children to use the gymnasium for their active playtime. When weather conditions permit, their play activities would continue to take place out of doors. Mr. Chasten explained that the gymnasium is for the church at-large. The Board discussed the letter from the Church and asked staff to bring back a draft confirmation letter to the Board before sending it to the Church. Mr. Schwartzman moved, seconded by Mr. Deitchman to modify the condition to read “??????????? The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Chasten announced that Jim Wasilak is the new Chief of Planning. Mr. Chasten reported that MCPS will be appearing before the Planning Commission on July 28 to present their use permit for Richard Montgomery High School to construct a new high school, outdoor athletic fields, new football field and bleachers, new site vehicular entrances, surface parking facilities, install new site infrastructure improvements, and raze the existing high school once the new school is constructed. Mr. Chasten reported that the Historic District Commission meetings are going to be televised. The Board of Appeals will be televised occasionally. Mr. Chasten provided an update on upcoming applications. Mr. Sternstein stated that he may not be attending the November meeting.
ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.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. | 
