City of Rockville Board of Appeals
Minutes

 Mayor and Council Chambers
Meeting No. 11-05
Saturday, December 3, 2005, 9:30 a.m.

The City of Rockville Board of Appeals convened in regular session in the Mayor and Council Chamber at 9:30 a.m., December 3, 2005.
 

PUBLIC HEARING

Special Exceptions SPX2005-00357-00361, Montgomery County Public Schools

The applicant is requesting special exception approval for the placement of modular classroom buildings at Richard Montgomery High School, Maryvale Elementary School, Fallsmead Elementary School, Carl Sandburg Special School and Thomas S.Wootton High School.

Mr. Hill commented that there is a special stipulation in State law regarding hearing cases from County School systems and all public institutions that supersede Rockville’s jurisdiction.  This is covered under Article 66B, Section 3.08, Item d in State law.  Mr. Hill explained that these particular special exceptions could be appealed to the State School Board and overruled by super majority.   Five Affidavit of Postings were submitted into the record as Exhibits 1-5. 

James Song with Montgomery County Public Schools’ Division of Construction presented the applicant’s request. 

In response to Mr. Deitchman, Mr. Song explained that all modular classrooms have been installed for the beginning of the school year because they could not wait for the approval process.  

Mr. Schwartzman questioned whether MCPS applied for building permits for the modulars.  Mr. Song replied that the building permits were applied for, but the Inspection Services has not approved them.  Mr. Chasten explained that the applicants are required to apply for occupancy permits.  In order not to hold up the need for the portable classrooms, the City issued the building permits, but the occupancy permits are still pending, so the buildings can be formally inspected by the City’s Inspection Services Division. 

Mr. Sternstein expressed concern is that MCPS appears before the Board with their applications after the fact.  Mr. Sternstein recalled that MCPS came before the Board last June 2004 asking for four portable classrooms.  He questioned why there was a need for portable classrooms so shortly after the renovation of Wootton High School.  Mr. Sternstein questioned the justification for these additional portable classrooms.  He said there is tremendous growth and the school system keeps missing it. 

Mr. Song explained that throughout the County, the student enrollment growth is now tapering off; however, the central part of the County has continued to grow beyond the student capacity. 

James Song also provided supplemental and detailed information to the Board with regard to inspection of the buildings, the reason for additional modular buildings, and student enrollment projection.

The Board discussed concerns regarding student growth projection, impact of portable classrooms on neighborhoods, special school programs that create a need for additional portable classrooms, useful life of portable classrooms, decided locations of portable classrooms, access from portables to the schools, housing of books, coats, etc., growth data of student enrollment for Wootton and Richard Montgomery High Schools, and whether the need for portables would decrease throughout the years. 

Mr. Song explained the student enrollment capacity for Richard Montgomery High School. 

In response to Mr. Sternstein, Mr. Song stressed that MCPS cannot build over-capacity of what the student enrollment data calls for. 

The Board further discussed the current number of portable units on each school site, when MCPS plans to begin eliminating, the temporary structures, whether the number of portables would be increasing on school sites in the future, and the status of the parking and play fields at Richard Montgomery High School.  

The Board discussed the future expectancy of the portable units at the five subject school sites regarding the findings of fact, staggering the school schedules, that the school board should find a solution to alleviate portable units, finding a timeframe for the school system to remove the portable units from the school sites, and an issue with the school board not coming before the Board of Appeals before the portable units are installed on school sites in Rockville. 

The Board suggested that for future hearings to request that individuals representing the School Board be better prepared to answer the range of questions from the Board of Appeals and provide applicable data. 

The following citizen testified in opposition to the subject applications:

Max Van Balgooy, 313 Twinbrook Parkway, which is adjacent to the Carl Sandburg Special School, stated that his objections are not to the staff who works there or the bus drivers, but he is concerned about the inadequate facilities at this location to accommodate the faculty parking.  Mr. Von Balgooy submitted handouts into the record as Exhibit 6.

Mr. Van Balgooy stated that the students require additional high supervision, therefore, more adults come to this center and, as a result, more parking is required.  In addition, there are more busses that go to this facility; there is also a queuing problem on Meadow Hall Drive and on to Twinbrook Parkway.  Mr. Van Balgooy noted that there are serious traffic conflicts that occur in that part of the neighborhood.  He stated that the busses are parked on other streets in the neighborhood because there is no place for them to wait for the students. 

Mr. Van Balgooy stated that the portable unit is generating additional traffic.  He noted that the school board projections are always inaccurate.  The parking must be kept off the streets and an area should be improved for the additional parking. 

Mr. Song stated that Mr. Van Balgooy’s issues of concern have been well noted.  He said that traffic is an issue for all schools.  He said a plan for parking for this school is scheduled for 2007.  The portable unit in question is to replace an existing unit.  There is not change in the number of staff and students.  He said the new parking plan would provide on-site parking and alleviate street parking.

The Board discussed concerns regarding the traffic, parking, replacing busses with smaller more efficient vans for better traffic maneuverability.

There being no one else to speak for or against the special exception applications, the Chair declared the public hearing closed.

DECISION

Special Exceptions SPX2005-00357-00361, Montgomery County Public Schools

Mr. Hill stated that Mr. Sternstein, who is the alternate to the Board, would enunciate the motion that Mr. Schwartzman is sponsoring for voting purposes.   
 
Mr. Sternstein moved for Mr. Schwartzman, seconded by Mr. Deitchman to grant five Special Exceptions SPX2005-00357-00361 per staff recommendations and subject to the condition that the grant is only for five years with the special exceptions then expiring at the end of the school year, June 2011 and also a requirement that if the school board believes the need to extend these special exceptions that it should come before the Board of Appeals in January of 2010 to provide a justification for extending these special exceptions.  The reason for the condition is the Board’s view that public school facilities and the quality of those physical facilities is that they do have an impact on the character of neighborhoods and how residents perceive their neighborhoods.  Indeed, it is acknowledged by the fact that the school system, itself, endeavors to avoid portable units knowing that they are not nearly as preferable to school programs conducted entirely within permanent facilities.  Mr. Sternstein stated that further justification for conditions of the special exceptions for only allowing these portable units for only a limited period is of the Board’s view that at a minimum the school system is to come before the Board in situations that require a variance or a special exception to at least ventilate what their reasons are for going ahead with various instruction programs or facility changes that implicate variances or special exceptions in this particular case be reaffirmed or re-justified in five years is very much in keeping with the requirement under the law that the school board, at least publicly, justify its reasons for doing what falls under the categories of special exceptions.  Mr. Sternstein stated that this motion applies to all five of the special exceptions. 

In response to Mr. Hill, Mr. Schwartzman stated he agrees with the motion with the addition to reiterate that the staff recommendations include erosion control, building permit and inspections must be followed by the school districts.  Mr. Sternstein asked Mr. Schwartzman if he would include the additional conditions as well.  Mr. Schwartzman replied that he concurs. 

Mr. Hill stated that he would pass for voting on the individual special exception applications with the understanding that the motion that was made would apply to all five of the special exceptions. 

The Board voted on the following special exceptions:

1.  Special Exception SPX2005-00357, Richard Montgomery – The motion passed unanimously.  Mr. Deitchman commented that the construction as presented previously is continued and that, as represented by the school board that construction is completed in 2008. 

2.  Special Exception SPX2005-00358, Maryvale Elementary School – the motion passed unanimously.

3.  Special Exception SPX2005-00359, Fallsmead Elementary School – the motion passed unanimously.

4.  Special Exception SPX2005-00360, Carl Sandburg Special School – the motion passed unanimously.  Mr. Deitchman commented that, as represented by the school board, that they complete the parking lot construction to lessen the queuing of the school busses at the school.  Mr. Schwartzman and Mr. Hill concurred with the comment.  Mr. Hill encouraged staff, based on a citizen’s representation, to follow up on the information provided as well as the visuals.

5.  Special Exception SPX2005-00361, Thomas S. Wootton High School – The motion passed on a vote of 2-1 with Mr. Hill voting nay.  Mr. Deitchman commented that this is of concern that, as represented by the school board, this school has a use up to 2012-1214 and that urges the school board to try to find out alternatives for temporary structures.  Mr. Hill stated that he believes that the testimony was that they do not expect anything to be built on or around 2014. 

Mr. Hill stated that he voted nay on this application because he could not make a required finding under Section 25-388 Item 2b to grant special exception applications, specifically.  He said he believes that the number of portable units in this case does affect the character of the neighborhood to a point that it is objectionable to the operation and quality of the school, particularly the positioning of these units as double rankings as opposed to single rankings on the school site, which contributes to the objection to the number of units on the site. 

Mr. Deitchman asked staff to obtain a list of all the special exceptions in which the Board approved portables with the expiration dates.

Mr. Sternstein also asked for a list of portables for each school facility.   

OLD BUSINESS

Election of the Chair for 2006

Mr. Deitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Hill to elected Mr. Steve Schwartzman as the Chair for 2006.  The motion passed unanimously.

Meeting Calendar for 2006

Mr. Deitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Schwartzman to approve the Meeting Calendar for 2006.  The motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Chasten reported on the upcoming agenda in February.

The Board discussed reappointments, future televised meetings, and a fence permit that was denied.

Mr. Schwartzman thanked Mr. Hill for a splendid year and the Board appreciates his chairmanship. 

MINUTES

Mr. Deitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Schwartzman to approve the minutes of Meeting No. 8-05, 9-05 and 10-05 as amended.  The motion passed on a vote of 3-0-1 with Mr. Sternstein abstaining from voting on the minutes of Meeting No. 10-05.

ADJOURN

There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 12:37 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.