PUBLIC HEARING Variance Application APP2007-00883, Christopher & Dana McNiff - for a variance from the front and side yard setback requirements to allow construction of a covered porch in the front and side yard addition to the dwelling located at 13217 Aleutian Avenue. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Ms. Walters clarified that the variance is for a one-foot encroachment, not a two-foot encroachment into the side yard setback. Mr. McNiff presented his request. Mr. McNiff stated that he and his family have lived in this house since 1991 and now the family has grown; the house is too small and they would like to expand the house as it is also in a state of disrepair. They would like to have a front porch because there is a lot of activity with the children out near the street and neighbors coming over to visit. A front porch would provide entertainment for his family and friends. It would not be economically feasible to move to a larger home in Rockville. Mr. Deitchman pointed out that this Board is supporting a change in the Zoning Ordinance to allow front porches as long as they are not enclosed and no larger than 12 feet. Mr. McNiff explained that the family needs a mudroom and a pantry. He said that the location of the entryway, which is located on the opposite side of the driveway does provide challenges to them and the side yard addition will provide access into the house and enhance the family’s living space. The porch will also provide protection from the weather from the driveway to the entrance of the house. The side yard addition will also provide protection from the weather and provide added utility and will enhance the family’s living space. In response to the Board, Mr. McNiff explained that his proposal would not be contrary to the public interest because he feels the improvements would enhance the dwelling aesthetically and upgrade its livability for the family. The relocation of the entryway will provide protection from the elements into their house. The current economic conditions prevent them from moving to a larger house in Rockville. The Board discussed the plans and noted that the steps to the deck were eliminated. Mr. McNiff explained that they were eliminated because he was told that he was asking for too much. Staff was asked to obtain the plans modified to illustrate the steps to the deck and to update the survey to show the modification. There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed.
Variance Application APP2007-00875, Douglas Mader - for a variance of 15 feet 5 inches from the front setback requirement on N. Horners Lane and a 15 foot variance from the truncation on the corner of Lincoln Avenue and N. Horners Lane. The applicant is proposing to construct a single-family home at 339 Lincoln Avenue. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Mr. Mader, Architect, presented the applicant’s (Ludbin Alba) request. Mr. Mader explained that the applicant would like to demolish the existing house because it is in very poor condition with termite infestation. He would like to build a new house on the site. Mr. Mader presented the plans of the house as Exhibit 2. Mr. Mader stated that he and the applicant have worked with City staff to design a house that suits the needs of a modern family, increases the setbacks, and complies with the recently adopted Lincoln Park Conservation District guidelines. Because the house complies with the guidelines that would be mandatory in the future, the variance would not be contrary to the public interest. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Ms. Hall explained that, essentially, if the applicant was not granted a variance for his property, he could only have a 15-foot wide house on his lot. She pointed out that she forgot to add a condition to this application regarding the tree on the North Horners Lane frontage is a City tree. Typically, as part of this development, staff would often require that the applicant remove the tree, but it is in fair condition and is worth saving. Therefore, the City Forester informed the applicant that the City wanted to save the tree. The City Forester wanted a condition added to the application that the Tree Save Plan be submitted prior to issuance of the building permit. Mr. Mader stated that Ms. Hall did inform him of the condition. He said that if the City finds the tree healthy enough to save, they accept it. He said the house would have to be setback farther than the existing house. They would keep construction twelve feet away from the tree. Mr. Mader discussed the needed three findings of fact. He stated that the existing house encroaches the same twelve feet five inches into the North Horners Lane frontage as will the new house. The proposed house is pushed back thirteen feet farther than the existing house along Lincoln Avenue. The largest improvement in setback is from the truncated corner, where the setback is increased from approximately two feet to fifteen feet. Mr. Mader said the house complies with the Lincoln Park Conservation District guideline. In addition, corner lots are typically wider than interior lots. Most interior lots are at least fifty feet wide in the Lincoln Park neighborhood. This lot is approximately forty-seven feet wide. When the front setback of twenty-five feet is combined with a side yard setback of seven feet, there is only fifteen feet in width left for the building envelope. Because this lot is a minimum of forty percent smaller than most lots in the neighborhood, because it will be encumbered by a fifteen-foot wide storm drain easement and because the property has met the twenty-five foot setback from Lincoln Avenue, there is a limited amount of space in which to place the house, driveway and parking pad within the depth of the lot. Because the garage has been placed within the basement in order to use the available lot coverage for the house, a larger parking pad is necessary to allow for backing out or in of the garage. These are all conditions peculiar to the property. Mr. Mader stated that limiting development on the property to a house that is fifteen feet or less in width would result in practical difficulty. The existing house measures twenty-five feet wide by twenty-three feet deep. If the existing house could be saved, it could have a fifteen feet wide addition placed onto the back to provide additional living space. However, since the house cannot be saved, it does not make sense to construct a modern dwelling with less than desirable room sizes. The proposed house does not encroach any farther into the setbacks and, in fact, improves the setbacks in two locations. The new house is only a few feet wider at twenty-seven feet eight inches than the existing house and is forty-seven feet deep, approximately twice the depth of the existing house. Since the rooms and layout of the proposed house are not extravagant, reduce the footprint would create a hardship because the functionality of the rooms would be so significantly reduced by a reduction in size. Mr. Mader stated that he has been redesigning this house since January 2007. The massing, and size and height have been reduced. Mr. Mader stated that they are in agreement with staff’s recommendations in the staff report. In addition, the neighbors were agreeable with the applicant’s proposal.
The Board discussed concerns regarding demolition of the existing house, and the storm drain easement on the lot.
There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. Variance Application APP2007-00881, Peter Neame - for a variance from the size limitation requirement for accessory buildings to construct a 16-foot x 16-foot greenhouse at 106 North Adams Street. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Mr. Hall pointed out that on January 27, 2006, a building permit was erroneously issued for the shed and it was placed on the site shortly thereafter. Therefore, although the shed is already in place, it needs to be included in the Variance in order to enable the applicant to keep it. The shed measures eight feet by sixteen feet for a total of 128 square feet. In the rear yard is a string of connected outbuildings containing 1296 square feet in area. It also contains the previously mentioned shed that contains 128 square feet. Together, the existing accessory building square footage is 1,424 square feet. The Historic District Commission has approved the shed and greenhouse. Mr. Neame presented his request. Mr. Neame stated that the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because the storage shed and the greenhouse addition are both located in the rear yard. The yard is of exceptional size at 18,145 square feet. It can easily accommodate the additional amount of accessory building square footage without seriously encroaching the abutting properties. Mr. Neame stated that the variance is requested owing to conditions peculiar to the property and not the result of any action taken by the applicant. The property is located within one of the City’s Historic Districts. The house, which was built in 1824, is the only remaining wood frame house from that timeframe, and is important to protect the integrity of the structure. The yard is extremely large in this part of the City and could easily accommodate the proposed greenhouse addition and small storage shed without reaching ten percent coverage of the lot or twenty-five percent of the rear yard. With the storage shed and the greenhouse, the total square footage is 1,685 square feet. Mr. Neame stated that the outbuildings have been on the property since the 1940s. He said the greenhouse would be placed on the end of the studio. The Historic District Commission has reviewed and approved its style. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Mr. Neame stated that the tool shed is 144 square feet and is standard in size. It was sized to fit a lawn mower and other tools. Attaching the greenhouse to the house was looked at but was determined to be incompatible with the house and the use inconsistent with attachment to the house. In addition, it was clear that it is not compatible with the architectural features of the house. The greenhouse at the chosen location allows for a stepping of the rooflines down from the existing building end to the roofline of the greenhouse. Because the greenhouse is more compatible architecturally and functionally with the accessory structure and because the storage shed is essentially invisible on the property, a literal enforcement of the Ordinance would not result in practical difficulty. Placement of this small greenhouse in the back yard of the property will only be partially visible, if at all, to the adjacent neighbors, due to the presence of mature trees and shrubs along the property boundary of the property. The greenhouse has been discussed with all of the adjacent neighbors and they are all in support. A petition is attached to the staff report. Mr. Neame pointed out that he and his wife are enthusiastic gardeners and they are restoring their gardens to bring back the historic nature of the property. The Board and staff discussed the design of the studio and the greenhouse and how it fits into the historic character of the home. There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. Variance Application APP2007-00882, Chris & Teresa Holler – The applicants are requesting a variance of three feet ten inches from the side yard setback requirement to construct a thirteen foot eight and three quarter inch by twenty eight foot three and one half inch wide addition onto the back of the existing house, resulting in the house extending six feet beyond the current footprint. A further span of fourteen feet of encroachment is proposed for a ten-foot deep deck with a four-foot wide set of stairs leading to the rear yard located at 806 Grandin Avenue. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Jeff Broadhurst of Broadhurst Architects, Inc., presented the applicants’ request. Mr. Broadhurst stated that he is also the Hollers’ next-door neighbor. He said he is a resident of the City of Rockville and served for several years on the Historic District Commission as well as the Chair of one of the Committees for Peerless Rockville. Mr. Broadhurst described the 1932 bungalow style house. He said it qualifies for historic designation if the owner were to apply for it. The yard slopes downward from the front property line to the rear yard with a drop of around seven feet to the back of the existing screened porch. From the back of the existing house on back to the rear lot line, the yard is relatively flat. Mr. Broadhurst stated that the footprint of the house is proposed to be expanded to the rear by six feet to provide a family room and expanded kitchen on the first floor. The angle of roofline along the side of the house is being altered only to accommodate the extension, retaining the same general feel of the sidewall of the structure. The second floor is currently a half story with dormers on the front and rear of the dwelling. To the rear, the dormer is being expanded and extended to increase the second floor bedrooms. Due to the dropping grade from front to back, the proposed ten-foot deep deck on the back of the house requires a set of stairs for access to the rear yard. Mr. Broadhurst stated that the 1932 bungalow should have had a setback of five feet rather than the three feet two inches current provided as setback. Little impact to the abutting property or the view of the property from the front of the property should result from the proposed addition with the proposed footprint not encroaching any closer to side of property line –only being extended six feet – and the angle of the roofline at the edge of the structure only being changed to accommodate the expanded footprint. The uncovered deck creates outdoor living space but more importantly forms a transition between the first floor of the dwelling and the rear yard grade. For these reasons, the variance would not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Broadhurst stated that the lot is very narrow at only forty-six feet in width. The proposed encroachment already exists on the property. These conditions combined with the fact that the house is of a style where an inset addition would not be architecturally compatible with the existing house are all conditions peculiar to the property. Mr. Broadhurst said that Historic Preservation staff has looked at the proposed addition and deck and found them to be sensitive to and compatible with the historically eligible dwelling. Once the screened porch has been removed to make it structurally sound enough to carry the weight of living space, it cannot be put back without the proposed three foot ten inch variance being necessary for its replacement. As a result, a variance would be necessary in order to expand living space within the footprint of the existing improvements. Increasing the footprint by six feet provides more functional space design within the dwelling and the deck creates a sensitive transition space between the first floor level and the rear yard grade. Without a deck and stairs, occupants of the house would have to either snake their way through the house to enter and exist through the basement or walk around the house to the rear yard. This results in practical difficulty. Mr. Broadhurst stated that the neighbors were informed of the project and they were very positive. In response to the Board, Mr. Broadhurst stated that no trees would be affected by this project. There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. Special Exception Application SPX2007-00372, Sorosh Sadeghi - for approval of an accessory apartment in the R-60 Zone at 316 West Edmonston Drive in the Hungerford neighborhood. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Ms. Sadeghi stated that they have installed a stove on the basement level of their single-family home. She said her husband’s parents live with them. She said that her in-laws would live with them whether there was a stove or not. She said that there are no other apartments or rooms for rent at their premises. She said both the main dwelling and the accessory apartment meet current development standards. They have 2-car driveway and a 2-car street parking in front of the house. Ms. Sadeghi stated that, to date, they have had no problems or complaints with regard to parking her in-laws extra vehicle. Ms. Sadeghi stated that there is an existing entrance to the accessory apartment and it is located so that the appearance of a single-family home is preserved. No external modifications to the dwelling are required. The accessory apartment will show the same address and any mail addressed to her in-laws’ indicate the above address. In response to the Board, Ms. Sadeghi said that she could not say whether she could limit the accessory apartment to her in-laws for it may be in the future that her father would come to live with the family. The Board discussed the requirement that special exceptions only run with current homeowners. It is not transferable from one homeowner to another. There being no one else to speak for or against the special exception application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. Special Exception Application SPX2007-00370, Twinbrook Community Church - for approval of a 105 student private elementary educational institutional in the R-60 Zone at 5906 Halpine Road in the Twinbrook neighborhood. Mr. Schwartzman disclosed that he lives two blocks from the Twinbrook Community Church. John Bayles, Pastor presented his request. Mr. Bayles stated that he has been the pastor of the church since Palm Sunday of 1998. Mr. Deitchman indicated to Pastor Bayles that it was found that apparently the notice sign was not posted on the property. He proposed that a condition be included in the application that would state, “The sign must be posted within 15 to 20 days. This was an error by the City and not the fault of the applicant. Pastor Bayles replied that he was in agreement with the condition. Pastor Bayles stated that the church has two full-time pastors with 110 people in the congregation. He discussed the background of the church. He stated that the church was originally named Halpine Baptist Church. The church was developed in the mid 1960s with a one-story church and accompanying site surface parking facilities. In 1978, the church building was expanded to its current size and configuration. In 1998, the church experienced a tremendous downsizing from its one time congregation of over 800 in 1986 to fewer than 75 in the mid 1990s. In 1998, Halpine Baptist Church and Amaranth Fellowship of Germantown merged. The former relationship with Southern Baptist was severed and the church began to operate as a nondenominational, independent ministry under its current pastor and congregation. Over the past several years, the church has worked toward revitalizing the congregation and serving the Twinbrook community and greater Montgomery County area. Over the years, the church has operated a variety of church ministries such as youth and children’s ministries, regular worship services, extension classes, seminary training, and community meetings. In addition, the church regularly reaches out through drug and alcohol rehabilitation support groups. The past six years, the church has established a daycare center and is now initiating the beginning of an elementary school, both of which have been part of the mission and vision of the church, historically. The church also has had the desire to share its facilities with other like ministries and currently leases its facilities to two other congregations: River of Life Church with about 75 members and Tapestry Church with about 50 members. These ministries meet on Sunday afternoons and Sunday evenings. In 2006, the church’s name was changed to Twinbrook Community Church in order to represent the current vision and mission of the church. Pastor Bayles stated that, in 2005, the church received congregational approval to explore the feasibility of establishing a Christian elementary school in the present facility. The church established a School Board in January of 2006 and were approved by the Maryland State Department of Education as a church exempt private school and applied for a special exception in March of 2007. They have worked closely with the City of Rockville Planning Commission, professional consultants, complied with the Building Codes, forestry criteria, and traffic and zoning restrictions. Pastor Bayles stated that the church plans to construct a new 2,913 square foot addition to accommodate two classrooms and re-locate office space. The remaining classroom space will come from interior renovations of current office space. Pastor Bayles discussed the proposed school’s hours of operation, which will be from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, year round. The center would be closed based on ten major government holidays and on government-declared snow days. The center is to be staffed by twelve employees. The private educational elementary institution will have a maximum enrollment of one hundred and five children from grades K thru six. He said that they have had a very positive relationship with neighbors. They also make parking available to neighbors for parties as well as other events. He said he has not received any negative comments. Pastor Bayles presented the church’s request using a power point presentation. He discussed the church property and the surrounding area, the church’s current use, the church’s Christian Daycare, and the proposed site use. Pastor Bayles stated that there are two entry points to the church and 110 onsite parking spaces. The property has modest landscaping that blends into the surrounding area. Pastor Bayles stated that, initially, in 2007-2008, the proposed school would begin with grades Kindergarten to 3rd grade and would expand in future years by one grade per year until all 6 grades and kindergarten have been filled. There are no external renovations or expansions proposed to the existing church in order to establish the elementary school operation. Existing classroom space and other ancillary space located on the ground level of the educational level has been or will be renovated for the elementary school’s operation. The proposed site use will not violate or adversely affect the Zoning Ordinance, Master Plan, or other applicable land use regulations. In accordance with the Ordinance, sufficient on-site parking exists for both the planned and existing site uses and the elementary school staff use. Pastor Bayles stated that a total of 57 parking spaces are required for church use, based on its 226-seat sanctuary. A total of 15 parking spaces are required for the existing 60-child day care center. A total of six spaces would be required for the proposed elementary school. Ms. Zirkle explained that with the school addition, the applicant had to bring some spaces into conformity because some were undersized. Therefore, with the restriping, there would be a total of 100 spaces, not 110 spaces. The five spaces for the church staff are not mandated by the Ordinance; it is actually 78 spaces required by the Ordinance and 100 spaces are provided by the church. Pastor Bayles noted that, in 1979, the church implemented a policy to lease a portion of its parking facilities to Metro rail commuters and other persons working in the site area to help augment on and off-street parking within the subject site area. These spaces are arranged in areas of the parking lot convenient to commuters. The spaces are made available during normal business hours. Pastor Bayles stated that a comprehensive traffic review has been filed by their agent, Street Traffic Studies, Ltd; 16626 South Westland Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20877. This study demonstrated that the volume of traffic generated by the elementary combined with the existing traffic volume of the daycare and church would not exceed acceptable levels for the neighborhood at any of the current or projected intersections. Pastor Bayles stated that the Senior Traffic Engineer with Street Traffic Studies developed a circulation design, which eliminates stacking in both the morning or evening drop off times. This design calls for a one-way traffic flow entering the property from Halpine Road, past the drop-off point, and exiting at Ardennes Avenue. In addition, they are implementing a staff help plan, which assists parents with both traffic flow and receiving children quickly and efficiently. In the event parents desire to walk their children directly into the school or daycare, there will be ample short-term parking in the designated areas. Pastor Bayles pointed out that they have acquired all appropriate licensing from county and state agencies charged with regulating the operation of private elementary schools. The proposed elementary school will be operated in accordance with the applicant request such as the number of classrooms and amount of floor space to be occupied, maximum number of children enrolled at the school, staffing level, and days and hours of operation. Pastor Bayles stated that appropriate compliance has been made regarding forestry issues affecting the project as submitted by their agent, A. Morton and Thomas, Consulting Engineers. Pastor Bayles pointed out that when they appeared before the Planning Commission, there were a number of concerns raised regarding multiple use and traffic congestions. He said that concern was raised by some citizens regarding how the scheduling of multiple functions by each of the three main components: the Church, the Elementary School, and the daycare, might create congestion to the area, especially in the evening. It is already in their internal control plan to schedule only one event per day in the main assembly areas of the church. This practice will continue to maintain order and keep congestion to a minimum. As a result of this practice, they have never had difficulty regulating or enforcing traffic. Another concern raised by a citizen had to do with noise raised by children playing basketball late at night. Pastor Bayles pointed out that they have not had a basketball net on their property for over eight years. The net that was on the lot was removed by their current administration in order to keep from disturbing neighbors at any time. In addition, they have no late night youth activities that spill over into the parking areas. If there is a late night disturbance, it is likely juveniles from the area, which has had an effect upon their neighbors and the church in the past. They are also concerned about this problem in their neighborhood and have worked with local police in the past to find solutions. Pastor Bayles explained that they have been compelled by local law enforcement agencies to install flood lighting on the full circumference of their building for security purposes. The lighting is aimed as close to the building as possible on the town home side of the building in order to reduce the light as much as possible. Pastor Bayles noted that one citizen suggested that the increased presence of children during the day would cause a disturbance to the adjacent town homes. It seems to him that any added noise that occurs during the day would not be an issue to current residents – as it occurs during normal work hours and they are mostly away from home. In addition, there are no activities that take place on the south side of the building, which might cause additional noise, as all of their outdoor activities take place on the north side of the building in the play yards or in the all purpose room on the interior of the building. Pastor Bayles stated that, at the presentation before the Planning Commission, it was pointed out that the President of the Cambridge Walk II Homeowners Association objected to their having a school in the area, but that he, himself, approves of having a daycare in the proposed Avalon Bay Builders. He said that this is false as there has been no official or unofficial affirmation of this plan by the Cambridge Walk II Homeowners Association to the Church or him. Pastor Bayles said that if their neighbors continue to believe that there is a security risk or a noise problem generated from their property, perhaps they could consider erecting an 8-10 foot privacy wall on their property line between them and the town homes. Pastor Bayles stated that there are 116 spaces on the lot, 100 that are proposed, and the regular attendance of people who come to church on Sunday mornings have from 50-60 cars and he can assure the Board that none of their worshipers park on Halpine Road and walk back to the church in order to be in front of the neighbors’ homes. Pastor Bayles stated that after listening to the objections from citizens at the Planning Commission meeting, the Church as made great strides to be good neighbors. The Board discussed the findings and the conditions in the staff report. Pastor Bayles said he was in agreement with the conditions in the staff report. Pastor Bayles mentioned that there are development plans to build an office building across the street and they feel as though they are going to have towers surrounding their Church. It seems that the citizens are trying to make the case that the Church is changing the community, when this is not the case. Ms. Zirkle stated that the major concern of the Planning Commission was the overlapping activities on the site. Pastor Bayles stated that the church is very careful about scheduling events at the same time. Mr. Schwartzman asked if Pastor Bayles would agree to a condition regarding not scheduling events at the same time on the site. Pastor Bayles replied that he would agree as long as it does not mean that the church could not have a small meeting of daycare employees and teachers in training to places in the building. Pastor Bayles submitted into the record Exhibit 1, Presentation of Power Point and Exhibit 2, the text of his presentation. The following citizens testified in favor of the application: 1. Dianne Carroll, 204 Martins Lane
2. J.H. Carroll, 204 Martins Lane
3. Gary Johnson, 10505 Huffing Place
4. Martin Ahlio, 2208 McAuliffe Drive
5. Clark Collins, 11901 Parklawn Drive
6. Hortencia Collins, 11901 Parklawn Drive
7. Laura and Demetrios Mustakas, 20444 Waters Point Lane, Germantown, MD
8. Emily Burnison, 19725 Teakwood Circle
9. Christina Ginsberg, 1204 Simmons Drive (Twinbrook Citizens Association)
10. Joseph Porter, 915 Crestfield Drive
11. Aurora Arcilla, Burke, Virginia
12. Eduardo Arcilla, Burke, Virginia
13. A member of the Twinbrook Community Church, Damascus, MD
14. Carl Robinson, Germantown, MD
15. Suzanne Philips, 1601 Lewis Ave. These citizens testified that they have seen no impact of parking or traffic on the neighborhood resulting from the church and its other uses. They all believe that the proposed elementary school would be a wonderful addition. Ms. Ginsberg, President of TCA commented on the letter dated June 8, 2007 from Joseph McClane, President of the Cambridge Walk II HOA regarding the HOA’s concerns about the application regarding traffic, special events that would overwhelm the small parking lot and church buildings, and the massive Twinbrook Station development that has been approved for the adjacent Metro property and Avalon Bay has proposed a large, multi-story building project directly across the street from the church property. Ms. Ginsberg stated that TCA has not taken a position on this application. She said that Avalon Bay is proposing to build apartments on a parcel, which is part of the Halpine Triangle located directly across from the Twinbrook Community Church. Personally, she would like to see a one-story use only on that site. She commented that the Cambridge Walk II HOA letter mentioned the Montgomery County Public Safety Facility located approximately 100 yards down Ardennes from the proposed school and playground and that should be addressed. The facility is frequented by convicted adults, who report to the building during their probationary period. The Board discussed the traffic concern and the development proposed for across the street from the church. The conditions in the staff report were also discussed. There being no one else to speak for or against the special exception application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. DECISIONS Variance Application APP2007-00883, Christopher & Dana McNiff Mr. Schwartzman moved, seconded by Mr. Deitchman to approve Variance Application APP2007-00883, Christopher & Dana McNiff per staff recommendations and subject to Condition 4 stating “To modify the plans to illustrate the steps to the deck, and Condition 5 stating “To update the survey to show the modification. The motion passed unanimously. Variance Application APP2007-00875, Douglas Mader Mr. Schwartzman moved, seconded by Mr. Deitchman to approve Variance Application APP2007-00875, Douglas Mader per staff recommendations and subject to Condition 4 stating, “Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicant must provide a “Save Tree Plan”. The motion passed unanimously. Variance Application APP2007-00881, Peter Neame Mr. Schwartzman moved, seconded by Mr. Deitchman to approve Variance Application APP2007-00881, Peter Neame per staff recommendations and the addition of 1,424 square feet of accessory building. The motion passed unanimously. Variance Application APP2007-00882, Chris & Teresa Holler Mr. Schwartzman moved, seconded by Mr. Deitchman to approve Variance Application APP2007-00882, Chris & Teresa Holler per staff recommendations. The motion passed unanimously. Special Exception Application SPX2007-00372, Sorosh Sadeghi Mr. Schwartzman moved, seconded by Mr. Deitchman to approve Special Exception Application SPX2007-00372, Sorosh Sadeghi per staff recommendations. The motion passed unanimously. Special Exception Application SPX2007-00370, Twinbrook Community Church Mr. Schwartzman moved, seconded by Mr. Deitchman to approve Special Exception Application SPX2007-00370, Twinbrook Community Church per staff recommendations and subject to the Special Exception that the sign be posted on the church property for twenty days and that the church will not schedule special events on the property at the same time. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS The Board and staff discussed the decision for COPT application. Mr. Chastens reported that David Hill, Planning Commissioner, would like to brief the Board on RORZOR’s update. He would like to brief the Board at its September meeting. Mr. Deitchman recommended a conference call. Mr. Chasten said he would obtain some dates and send them to the Board. The Board discussed concerns about the Julius West Monopole. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 12:34 p.m. | 
