PUBLIC HEARING Variance Application APP2005-00847, Erin Mahoney The applicant is asking for a 10 foot variance for a rear yard setback variance from the requirement that an accessory building be placed in the rear yard in order to construct a deck at 207 Forest Avenue. The applicant would like to place a wrap-a-round deck onto the rear and left side of the house. The main portion of the deck measures 18 feet by 14 feet deep. Although there is no setback issues associated with the deck, its placement requires a setback variance from the requirement that an accessory building be placed in the rear yard for the existing garage. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. The property is located within the R-90 Zone, but the location of accessory buildings is based on the main dwelling or any projection thereof. Because there is a ten-foot area where the proposed deck and existing garage share space in the depth of the lot, a variance of ten feet is required from the accessory building setback requirement in order to construct the proposed deck. Staff recommended that the farthest backset of stairs on the plan be eliminated. Ms. Erin Mahoney presented her request. Ms. Mahoney explained that she and her family would like to have some outdoor space and utilize the back yard. Ms. Mahoney said that the garage is the original and was built in 1931. An addition was built on the back of the house in 1960 leaving only 8.5 feet between the back of the house and the front of the garage. The floor at the back door of the house and the front of the garage is barely wide enough for a landing and steps from the back door into the yard. Because of the height of the house and the sloping grade of the yard, a deck is preferable to a patio, which would require retaining walls and multiple levels, which she and her husband feel would be a hazard for their children and visitors. Relocating the garage is impractical and financially impossible. The existing space between the house and the garage is only enough room for a landing and stairs from the back door of the addition into the yard. They have considered alternatives, but have concerns about each. Ms. Mahoney said that she and her husband have a two-year old daughter and are expecting another child. They would like a protected area for their children to play. Currently, their daughter plays in the front yard, which is near a very busy street. Ms. Mahoney stated that they also want to minimize the steps the children must navigate to a safe play area in the back yard. A set of steps from a deck to the grass is safer than steps to a lower level to a patio with a retaining wall, that could be as much as 1 to 2 feet high leaving a large exposed area around the perimeter of the patio where children, as well as visitors to the property unfamiliar with a multilevel area could fall and injure themselves. In response to Mr. Hill, Ms. Mahoney explained that the plan shows an existing fence that goes from the corner of the existing garage to the deck, and then back to the house. She stated that they had planned to put the fence back with a gate; they did not draw it on the plan because they did not think it was relevant at the time because it was going right back where the fence was. They need a gate in the back yard for their daughter. They really want to have an enclosed back yard where their daughter cannot escape. Ms. Mahoney stressed that they really need direct access to the back yard and would like to keep from going down the steps and through the gate to put their daughter in the back yard. She said there is no way to get back into the house without going out of the gate and up the stairs to the door. If they were only allowed to build the stairs on the side, that would be worse than what they have now. Mr. Hill questioned whether it would be possible to reconfigure the stairs and put them on the other side of the house. Ms. Mahoney replied that they tried to do several variations on this plan. They do need stairs that lead them to the driveway and the garage and they want stairs going to the back yard. Ms. Mahoney noted that her husband is concerned that if they install stairs in a small space near the walkway, somebody is going to fall and injure him or herself. She said they did not think about putting the stairs on the other side of the house, because they would protrude into the side yard. They also tried to put the stairs over to the garage side, but there was too much going on in that area and they needed to have adequate clearance to be able to walk to and from the garage. The reason they put the stairs directly opposite with the door is that it is a straight line out of the door, down the steps and into the back yard and it does not obstruct the view out the door so they could see what is going on in the yard, and that is the most important thing. Placement was important because they did want to be able to see into the yard. They also tried to make a plan that would be aesthetically pleasing and would match their house. She knows that putting a set of stairs on the side would not be as attractive as they had planned; the walkway between the garage and deck would be paved and there is going to be a small patio at the base that would tie to the garage further. Therefore, if the steps were placed on the opposite side, it would not be very useful and the steps would be going into the tree roots of the large tree on that side. Ms. Mahoney stated that they also want to put a gate at the top of the existing stairs by the garage to enclose the children. In response to Mr. Deitchman regarding staff’s recommendation to eliminate the steps down to the back yard, Ms. Hall explained that the recommendation was just to minimize the variance and 12 feet is usually adequate for most decks, but this is deeper. There is nothing nonconforming about the garage and there is nothing nonconforming about deck; it is the relationship to each other. In response to Mr. Sternstein, Ms. Hall explained that the applicant is asking for a variance for a structure that already exists, not for the one they are trying to build. She noted that the garage was built in 1931 and this was a decision made a long time ago, probably, to shorten the length of the driveway without any thought to future zoning laws. Ms. Mahoney stated that the lot is long and narrow and they wish that the garage were set back further. They would like to have a deck so they would have room for a table and chairs and move around freely. In response to Ms. Schwartzman regarding a smaller deck, Ms. Mahoney explained that they would like to eliminate multiple levels so that the children would not have to negotiate stairs all of the time. Mr. Deitchman inquired about comments from the neighbors. Ms. Mahoney replied that the neighbors were interested in their project and had no objections. The Board discussed concerns about the side setback, possibly having the stairs on the other side of the house, and reducing the size of the deck and eliminating the stairs. There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. DECISION Variance Application APP2005-00847, Erin Mahoney Mr. Deitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Schwartzman to approve Variance Application APP2005-00847, Erin Mahoney with a modification to Condition 1 to read “The uncovered deck would be constructed in substantial conformance with submitted plans and delete the sentence “with the elimination of the farthest back set of stairs on the plans”. The Board would also like to make clear that in its decision making to grant this variance, it took into account that this is not a lot line setback; that the height of the deck is a maximum of 3 feet and will function as a patio and a deck; that the deck with this lot is significant and that the deck would also control access to the use of the walkway to get to the garage and the back yard. There were no objections made at this hearing or from the neighbors or filed with the City. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS The Board discussed the upcoming MCPS applications for portable classrooms and having a televised meeting for those applications. The Board also discussed reappointments and terms. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:30 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. | 
