PUBLIC HEARING Variance Application APP2006-00872, Matthew Shapiro – The applicant is asking for a two-foot variance from the side yard setback requirement of eight feet in the R-60 Zone, in order to retain an improperly constructed carport at 533 Brent Road. The total amount that the carport encroaches into the side yard setback is 4.8 feet. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. On March 14, 2006, a City of Rockville complaint was logged into the permit tracking system that construction was taking place at this property without a permit. On March 17, 2006, the applicant applied for a building permit for the carport. A permit was issued on March 28, 2006 for a 9.2 foot wide by 17.2-foot deep carport. The carport was narrowed to 9.2 feet in width after discussions with staff that a larger carport encroached into the side yard setback. City records indicate that the footings were inspected and passed construction review on April 14, 2006. On July 27, 2006, a final inspection was scheduled. The inspection failed on the basis that the carport did not match the size approved on the building permit and because it encroached in the side yard setback. Mr. Shapiro presented his request. Staff had recommended denial of his request. He said he built the carport to shelter his car. Mr. Shapiro said he elected not to build the carport in the back yard because of the location of an existing accessory building and a very large tree. Therefore, he decided that the carport should be built next to the house and would construct the carport in such a way that it would blend in with the rest of the house as well as the neighborhood. Mr. Shapiro pointed out that the carport is not finished; it still needs to be painted.
Mr. Shapiro explained that he is asking for the variance so that he would not have to tear down the carport. Mr. Shapiro pointed out that from the photo of his carport in the staff report there is not enough room to reduce the footage of the carport a few inches because when the car is parked in the carport, it is very close to one of the footing posts. Therefore, moving the carport in approximately six inches would make the carport unusable. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Mr. Shapiro stated that it was his understanding that whatever structure is built, a three-foot overhang is allowed. Ms. Hall explained that it is not only the overhang that encroaches, it is the entire structure. The footing posts were set too far out; it pushed the eaves beyond what could be an allowable encroachment. The size of the carport is 11 feet wide by 17 feet deep encroaching into the side yard approximately two feet. It is about a foot to a foot and a half over what is permitted. Mr. Shapiro pointed out a few points of interest. When he received the initial permit, there was apparently a slight discrepancy to his drawings compared to the permit application. The drawings had the setback from the side yard of seven feet. Mr. Shapiro explained that when he was approved, he proceeded to build his carport based upon the drawings that were approved by the City. He informed the Board that it the inspection was limited to the width and depth of the footings and not placement. During the final inspection, the inspector pointed out that the drawings did not match the application and as a result he could not approve the final inspection. He added that he passed the footing inspection and it is the location of the footings that are in question. Mr. Shapiro stated that it would be impossible to move the footings without tearing down the entire structure. In response to Mr. Sternstein, Mr. Shapiro said that the drawing states the width as 10.2 feet wide by 17 feet deep. Ms. Hall explained that the permit was submitted and the drawings had the width of the carport at 10.2 feet. In Planning, staff is not allowed to write on the plans and Inspection Services also does not write on plans. Ms. Hall said she does not write on the plans, but she can write on the House Location Survey and that was the result of a discussion with the applicant. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Ms. Hall said she wrote on the House Location Survey because the dimensions were wrong. She noted that whoever drew up the House location Survey had the wrong dimensions for the building restriction line. When the plans come in, she discusses the plans with those who have questions about their plans and that construction has to be a minimum of eight feet from the BRL. Mr. Shapiro’s drawings said the width was 9.2 feet and at that point Mr. Shapiro came in and they discussed the drawings. Ms. Hall stated that it was her impression that he was fully aware any if the plans had said 10.2 feet. He knew it was supposed to be 9.2 feet. The width of the carport should be 8 feet from the BRL. The Board and staff discussed the carport measurements. Mr. Shapiro said that there is not enough room now to open his car doors due to the air conditioning condenser and the footing post. The measurement of the first footing post and the condenser is the measurement that is giving him the trouble. Mr. Shapiro stated that, clearly, there is a discrepancy on the drawings. Ms. Hall noted that Mr. Shapiro came in and they discussed the matter before the building permit was released because he had to agree to the lesser measurement. Mr. Shapiro explained that he initially applied for the permit, he had the structure being much larger; it was reduced to 10.2 feet. Ms. Hall stated that, before they issued the permit, they should have had those dimensions corrected. They are typically corrected by the applicant, but, after a full discussion with planning, Mr. Shapiro understood that the structure had to be reduced. The Board discussed and studied the drawings and photos included in the staff report. They also expressed concern about the inspection process for the carport. In response to the Board, Mr. Shapiro said that he had spoken to the neighbors and they had no objections to the proposed carport. He noted the most of his neighbors commented that they were surprised that he would need a variance. Mr. Shapiro stated that, setting aside the issue with Planning and looking at this case based upon the structure that is being built, he feels that a variance should be granted in this case. The structure is not anything unusual; it would not be a negative impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Deitchman stated that the Board would be more sympathetic to Mr. Shapiro if he had come before the Board before he built the carport. In response to Mr. Maravilla regarding a complaint of construction on March 14, 2006, Mr. Shapiro replied that he had begun building of the structure without a building permit. He did not realize that he needed a permit to build the carport. He said he had to pay a fine to continue the procedure. He said he not aware of any complaints about the structure, itself. Mr. Shapiro discussed the hardship of removing the footings if he was required to reduce the width of the carport. Mr. Shapiro stated that there are other carports in and around the neighborhood that are either right on the property line or very close to the property line. Mr. Deitchman stated that some of those carports were granted variances by this Board. When asked if Mr. Shapiro obtained a building permit for his fence located behind the carport, he responded that he did obtain a permit when he constructed his six-foot fence. However, he did not realize he needed a permit for the carport. In response to the Board, Ms. Hall stated that traveling through Mr. Shapiro’s neighborhood, she saw strange little garages; they look funny, but she was sure they encroached. She did notice that the houses at the intersection of Aberdeen over to what was the Buckingham property had no carports. Ms. Hall explained that she felt a little uncomfortable making a recommendation for approval because she did not want to set a precedent. The Board has concerns about the measurements, the drawings, the permit process, and possibly reducing the carport to the required size. Ms. Hall stated that it is the responsibility of the applicant to know the law and, regardless of what the plans said with the width of the carport, there was full discussion about how far the carport should be from the property line. Mr. Shapiro stated that the variance as requested owing to conditions peculiar to the property and not the result of any action taken by the applicant because of the unique conditions of the property, such as the small size of the lot and location of the large trees in the back yard prevents locating the carport elsewhere on the property. Mr. Shapiro stated the variance as requested would not be contrary to the public interest because the carport has been constructed to match the existing home and surrounding neighborhood and in addition to set back from the front of the house to lessen its impact. Mr. Shapiro stated that the hardship that would result in not granting the variance would be that the carport shelters his car from inclement weather, provides shelter for storage for a variety of items and provides use of his property. In addition, that he may be required to tear down his carport by the City due to the fact that at the final inspection, the inspector pointed out that the drawings did not match the application and as a result could not approve the final inspection. The Board had many concerns regarding the carport and its encroachment. They discussed that the applicant needed to provide more detailed drawings for the carport. Mr. Shapiro stated that he would be happy to provide better plans to the Board. The Board agreed to table the application until the Board’s March 10, 2007 meeting. There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. DECISIONS Variance Application APP2006-00872, Matthew Shapiro Mr. Schwartzman moved, seconded by Mr. Deitchman to defer this application until March 10, 2007. The motion passed unanimously. MINUTES Mr. Deitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Schwartzman to approve the minutes of Meeting No. 8-06 as amended. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Deitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Schwartzman to approve the minutes of Meeting No. 9-06 as amended. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Deitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Schwartzman to approve the minutes of Meeting No. 1-07 as written. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:40 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. | 
