PUBLIC HEARING Variance Application APP2007-00885, Andrew Dutka – for a six-foot variance from the rear yard set back requirement to build a twelve by twelve sunroom at 3 Purdue Court. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Mr. Dutka presented his request. Mr. Dutka stated that the existing deck is 16x18 feet and they are proposing a 12x12 sunroom onto the back of their house. Mr. Dutka stated that his house is setback further than the other houses within the court. It appears that the original placement of the house may have been the result of an effort to align the front of the houses within the court. Mr. Dutka stated that a retaining wall is located near the back property line, with his property being on the low side of the wall. The retaining wall allows the grade of the back yard of this property to be relatively flat. Mr. Dutka stated that their house is very secluded from neighbors on either side. The deck has been removed and the remaining cement slab is the landing to the sliding doors that opens into the back of their dining room. The proposed structure would adjoin the sliding glass doors. They contracted with the Universal Energy Corporation to build their sunroom with a slanted roof with a glass overhang. The reason for the three-season sunroom is due to the mosquitoes because of the standing water and dampness in the backyard. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Mr. Dutka stated that the sunroom would be enclosed and that the size of the sunroom is to allow enough furniture so they can relax and entertain their friends and family. Mr. Dutka stated that the addition of the sunroom would not take away from the appearance of the neighborhood. It will not affect traffic through the neighborhood and there would be no negative impact on the neighborhood. The purpose of adding the sunroom is so that they can enjoy the view of their back yard year round without being subject to the elements and they would not be able to do this if the variance were not granted. In response from the Board, Mr. Dutka stated that the sunroom would be open underneath and built on piers. They will have it screened in to prevent animals from getting underneath the structure. The following residents testified in support of the variance: 1. Carson Mills, 4 Purdue Court, testified that he lives to the right of Mr. Dutka and his family. He stated that he is in support of the application. 2. Mark Pierzchala, President of the College Gardens Civic Association, testified that he did write a letter of support. He said he considers the variance a minimal request compared to the other houses in the community and, in general, the neighborhood supports people who keep up and improve the value of their homes. A representative of Universal Energy Corporation described the design of the sunroom. Mr. Schwartzman questioned the front wall of the sunroom. The representative explained that the sunroom is a solarium style design, which requires curved glass for water runoff. Mr. Schwartzman stated that the building code requires that it must be 7 feet clear inside a room. The representative replied that if something has to be changed in the code, they would be sure to build to code. There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed.
Variance Application APP2007-00886, Catherine McAlpine-Eig – for a variance of eight feet eight inches from the front yard setback requirement for the existing house and proposed addition on the Maple Avenue frontage at 315 Baltimore Road. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Ms. McAlpine-Eig presented her request. Ms. Eig stated that the original house was built in 1985. She purchased the property with the intention of restoring the historic house. She had the house historically designated and all of the plans necessary for the house’s restoration and improvement have been reviewed by Historic Preservation staff and the Historic District Commission. A subdivision plat has already been approved by the Planning Commission that allows for a two-lot subdivision that divides off the back of the property for development with a new house. The Historic District Commission has approved removal of the existing garage and the addition plans submitted with this application. The subdivision process to divide the property into two lots is not complete. Design work is underway for the installation of a public sewer to serve the new lot. Once the process is completed, the plat that divides the property into two lots can be recorded. The property is currently made up of three twenty-seven foot wide lots – Lots 24, 25 and 26, Block 3, in the Rockville Park subdivision. Two of the lots, Lots 24 and 25 are interior lots and Lot 26 is a corner lot located on the corner of Maple Avenue and Baltimore Road. The property has been improved with a house that was built at the end of the nineteenth century and a garage and additions to the house were placed on the property in the mid twentieth century. The grade on the lot rises above the street grade on Baltimore Road. Along the Maple Avenue frontage, the grade rises from Baltimore Road towards the back of the lot. The yard, however, is relatively flat because of the terracing that takes place along the Baltimore Road frontage. The property is located in the R-60 Zone, where the front yard setback requirement is twenty-five feet. Because the existing house and proposed addition come to within sixteen feet, four inches of the front property line, a variance of eight feet eight inches is necessary for the existing house and addition. The lot currently consists of the three original twenty-seven foot wide lots. Ms. Eig discussed the three findings of fact that must be made in order for the Board to approve the variance. She stated that the house has been at its current location since late in the nineteenth century. The existing addition has encroached into the front setback since the mid twentieth century. Although the new addition will encroach for a longer span as well as two stories in height as opposed to one story, there are no sight line issues associates with the addition because it will be set back more than fifty-seven feet from the corner. Allowing the encroachment for the addition would not create a precedent within the neighborhood because the condition already exists. As a result, the variance would not be contrary to the public interest. Ms. Eig stated that the variance requested is not a result of any action taken by her because the lots on the property are nonconforming and the placement of the house does not meet current setback standards. These conditions were not caused by any action taken by her because they date back to 1890 and slightly thereafter when the house was built. There are no records to indicate what if any guidelines were in place for development in the 1890s, but, from the pattern of development in the Rockville Park subdivision, it is clear that at least two lots were necessary to construct a house. It is also not clear what rules were in place that dictated where houses were placed on the lots. Therefore, the age and historical significance of the house and the nonconforming setback are conditions peculiar to the property. These conditions also create a peculiar condition for the placement of an addition that is sensitive to the historic house. If an addition were to be set back about nine feet from the side wall of the house, it does not seem that it would be as architecturally compatible with the historical house as the proposed addition. Therefore, the original subdivision and house placement nonconformities are conditions peculiar to the property that are not the result of any action taken by the applicant. Ms. Eig stated that if a variance were not granted for the existing house, a severe hardship could result if more than fifty percent of the encroaching portion of the house needed to be replaced due to deterioration or catastrophic event. Due to the house’s age and its historical significance, it would not be a good situation if the house could not be restored in a timely fashion. Because the house is historically significant, it is also important that any renovations to it be compatible with the house. The addition has been reviewed and approved by the Historic District Commission. Offsetting the addition approximately nine feet to avoid the need for a variance for the addition is not in keeping with the architectural style of the house. It may also create a situation where the interior circulation of the existing house would need to be so rearranged that the existing character of the interior spaces would be lost. In response to the Board, Ms. Eig stated that she agrees with staff’s conditions in the staff report. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Ms. Hall explained that the variance is requested for the existing house and the proposed addition. If they were to do something else than they would have to come back to the Board. When looking at the House Location survey, there is not a lot more that can be done along that frontage after the addition has been built because the new subdivision actually creates the side lot line opposite Maple Avenue, which then becomes the rear yard and, so, the shared property line between this house and the new house that would be built on the new lot would become side-yard setbacks. Ms. Eig noted that the Maryland Historic Trust and the Historic District Commission also controls what could be done on her house. The following citizens asked questions of the applicant: 1. Janet McCool disclosed that she was a member of the Historic District Commission, but she was speaking as a neighbor of the applicant. Ms. McCool had questions about the setbacks with regard to the Historic District Commission. 2. Barbara Carver, 312 Reading Avenue stated that this house is historical and receiving tax credits. It has already been approved for the two-story addition on the back of the house. She is questioning the Maple Avenue portion of the house. She complained that she received the City’s notification on August 30 and she really had not had a lot of time to prepare for this hearing. She asked questions about the proposed addition. She asked the Board to delay the decision because of the late notice and that she does not believe the residents have had enough time to look the application over. She noted that the sign has been laying flat on the ground for weeks. Ms. Carver stated that the first notice that they received weeks ago was about the addition on the back of the house and the landscaping of the yard, which they had no problem with, but, now they feel that this is a huge addition. Ms. Carver stated that they are not prepared not to oppose this application without further research. The Board and staff discussed the notification process and how to correct the process so that residents would receive the notifications in time to prepare for the public hearings. Mr. Sternstein asked Ms. Eig if she would consider postponing her application until the Board’s October meeting. Ms. Eig stated that she has a timeline with the Maryland Historic Trust on the architectural plans, which also must be submitted to the Historic District Commission. She said she would have to ask the Maryland Historic Trust for an extension of time. Mr. Deitchman suggested putting the postponement in writing to the Maryland Historic Trust. In response to Mr. Sternstein, Ms. Carver stated that her concern is the integrity of the house. It is a historical house, but with the huge addition proposed, it is a concern to her. In response to Mr. Sternstein, Ms. Hall pointed out that what is being discussed is extending the back of the house approximately 8 feet beyond what is already there. The difference is that it will be two-story in lieu of one-story. It does have more massing. The variance is only for the portion of the addition along Maple Avenue. The other issue is that the remainder of the addition does not require a variance. The Board and the applicant discussed timeline in finalizing her plans to be approved by the Maryland Historic Trust and the Historic District Commission. The following citizen testified: 1. Marilyn Al-Mansoor, 214 Baltimore Road, testified that she feels that variance should not be approved. She said she is concerned about the increased setback. She said that the neighborhood is not a neighborhood of large, modern houses on small lots. Ms. Al-Mansoor stated that they do have the right to preserve the character and dignity of their neighborhood by denying the variance on this setback. She mentioned that her concern is with the addition on Maple Avenue side of the house. In response to the Board, Ms. Al-Mansoor said that she is very confused about the setbacks and where the additions are proposed to be constructed on the existing house. She said she understood the addition would be constructed only on the back of the house. Ms. Hall explained the applicant’s variance request.
2. A former resident of the subject house spoke in opposition to the application. She said she and her family owned the house. Her parents renovated the interior of the house and Peerless Rockville used their house for their historic house tours. The house conformed to historic regulations and now it is rapidly deteriorating. She said she is appalled at the appearance of the house, and how it has deteriorated over the past years.
3. Janice Fox, 301 Baltimore Road testified that she did receive both sets of notification regarding this hearing. Cathy’s goal is to retain the historic nature of the house and do what is necessary to make the house usable in 2007. In order to make the house usable, adjustments do have to be made in this day and age. Janet McCool, 709 Grandin Avenue, said she is concerned about the notifications that people did not receive and that the sign was not standing upright for people to notice. She said she is also worried about setting a precedent with this massive addition. She said she would like to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood as well as greenspace. Ms. Hall pointed out that this property has a larger setback than some of the abutting properties. She pointed out photos of other properties in the area with irregular setbacks. Ms. Eig stated that this is an eclectic neighborhood. There are setback violations all over the neighborhood. She said the lot coverage, the massing, and other requirements have been renewed multiple times by the Historic District Commission and the Maryland Historic Trust. She noted that the plan has been reduced. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Ms. Eig stated that she never had a plan that did not involve a variance because a variance was needed for one side of the house. Much of the German siding on the house will not change. There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. Variance Application APP2007-00887, Michael Salgaller – for a variance from the front yard setback requirement for the existing house and to construct a screened porch addition onto the West Gude Drive frontage of the house at 1027 Wintergreen Terrace. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Ray Amin, Architect presented the applicant’s request. Mr. Amin stated that the applicant is proposing to add a twelve-foot deep by twenty-foot wide screened porch onto the basement level of the existing house. The property is oddly shaped, constrained by two front yard setbacks – one that was created after the house was built and the rear yard has many gyrations in grade with little enjoyable flat area. The applicant is also requesting a variance for a portion of the existing house that encroaches into the setback area along West Gude Drive frontage. Mr. Amin stated that the subdivision was developed prior to West Gude Drive construction. The applicant is asking to build a screened porch to enjoy the back yard. Because the grade drops downward towards the house from the property line along West Gude Drive, rainwater clearly has the potential to puddle near the sliding doors leading into the basement. The placement of the addition with a roofline that slopes away from the house would require some regarding to the surrounding area in order for it to channel the rainwater away from the house and addition. The downspouts will also allow for directed run-off control. Mr. Amin said that there appears to be more than ninety feet between the West Gude Dive paving and the back corner of this house. The highest point of the rear yard is at the back property line. Together with the existing mature trees, this area acts as a buffer between the property and the West Gude Drive right-of-way. Constructing the screened porch so close to the property line would seem to be more of an issue for the property owner than with the general public. Mr. Amin explained that the applicant is requesting a variance for a portion of the existing house that encroaches into the setback area along West Gude Drive frontage. At its closest point, the back wall of the existing house is only located twenty-five feet from the property line that is along West Gude Drive. This means that the existing house needs a variance of five feet and the proposed screened porch would need a variance of seventeen feet from the front setback requirement along West Gude Drive. The Board and staff discussed how the property was affected when West Gude Drive was constructed. Ms. Hall explained that the property has two front yards because it abuts a right-of-way. There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. Variance Application APP2007-00888, James Baughman – for a variance of 6 feet from the front and 5 feet from the side yard setback requirement to construct a two-car garage at 627 Smallwood Road. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Mr. Baughman presented his request. Mr. Baughman stated that he is proposing to add a twenty-two foot wide by twenty-six foot deep two car attached garage onto the Smallwood Road side of the house. Due to the diagonal placement of the house on the corner lot, the back corner of the garage is proposed to encroach to within five feet of the side lot line of the abutting property and the front corner is proposed to encroach six feet into the Smallwood Road front setback. Mr. Baughman explained that they cannot build an attached two-car garage anywhere on the property without an approved variance. The side yard on the right side of the house is near the sidewalk; the side yard on the left side of the house is near the property line of 625 Smallwood Road; and the backyard is near the property line of 503 Goldsborough Drive. In addition, if a two-car garage were to be built in the backyard, it would require the removal of two 40-plus year-old pine trees and one 60-plus year-old maple tree. He said that his house is the only corner house on Smallwood Road that faces the corner. The property is mostly front yard and maintains the original house placement. Only a 6-foot encroachment for a corner of the garage is requested in the front yard and only a 6-foot encroachment for a corner of the garage is requested in the side yard. The neighbor residing on the side yard adjacent property is in full support of the two-car garage as demonstrated by his letter of support and signature on the attached petition of support. In addition, there is a letter of approval signed by the Woodley Gardens HOA President. The position of the garage on the property will not cause a site line distance problem, which demonstrates that it will not be injurious to the neighborhood. Mr. Baughman continued to state that the attached two-car garage would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. The two-car garage would not diminish the values of adjacent properties and would not increase congestion in the public streets or otherwise endanger public safety. Mr. Baughman pointed out that their vehicle has been broken into twice. The attached two-car garage would provide he and his family a comfortable level of security for their possessions, reduce the risk of car vandalism, car theft and other car crimes. In addition, the garage will look much better aesthetically than the existing one-car carport and adjacent crumbling concrete slab, which will increase curb appeal of their home, thus increasing its value and the value of the homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Baughman noted that the proposed garage will provide added storage. The garage will be constructed of the same materials and design as the existing house and will not alter the essential character of the property and neighborhood. The Board discussed concerns regarding the size of the garage. Ms. Hall stated that she believed that the 22 foot width was justified because a chimney encroaches approximately two feet five inches into the proposed garage’s width, leaving slightly less than twenty feet in width as clear space for the parking of two cars side by side. There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. Variance Application APP2007-00889, John Mangan – for a variance from the front yard setback requirement to build a two-story addition at the rear of the existing house to accommodate an in-law suite and improved second floor at 501 West Montgomery Avenue. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Mr. Mangan, Architect, presented the applicant’s (Stephen Morris) request. Mr. Mangan stated that the applicant proposes a nineteen foot six inch extension onto the back of the house that continues the same sidewalls as the existing dwelling. Further plan include raising the roof for an improved second story above the new footprint. The existing house is located fourteen feet from the front property line that abuts Laird Street. Therefore, an eleven-foot front setback variance is necessary for the house with the proposed improvements. Mr. Mangan discussed the findings of fact. He noted that, according to the State Tax Assessors database, the house was built in 1940. Although the new addition will encroach for a longer span as well as be taller than the existing dwelling, there are no sight line issues associated with the addition because it will be set back more than eight-three feet from the corner. Allowing the encroachment for the addition not to create a precedent within the neighborhood because the condition already exists with this house, the house across Laird Street as well as others in the neighborhood. The corner lot is only fifty-one feet wide. If current setback standards were to be applied to the lot, seven feet on the side and twenty-five feet on the Laird Street frontage, the property could only accommodate a nineteen-foot wide house or addition. The narrow corner lot and the placement of the house precede modern zoning standards that are clearly conditions peculiar to the property that were not caused by the owner of the property. Mr. Mangan stated that if a variance were not granted for the existing house, a severe hardship could result if more than fifty percent of the encroaching portion of the house needed to be replaced due to deterioration or catastrophic event. Restricting the additions to an area that complies with the setback requirements, would not be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling or surrounding properties. There would also be difficulty producing interior circulation that is compatible, without reconfiguring the entire existing first floor. Mr. Mangan stated that the applicant is proposing this two-story addition at the rear of the house would accommodate an in-law suite as well as an improved second floor. The Board and staff discussed the setbacks and the proposed addition. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Mr. Mangan explained that a lesser variance would not work because it would not have been compatible or aesthetically pleasing.
There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. Special Exception Application SPX2007-00368, and Variance Application APP2007-00884, Montgomery College Rockville – for the construction of a new Science Center Educational Building, parking lot, and tennis court on the Rockville Campus of Montgomery College. The applicant has also applied for a variance from the building height limit of the R-S Zone to construct a Science Center building that is 80 feet tall at its highest point. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. David Capp, Chief Facilities Officer with Montgomery College presented the applicant’s request. Mr. Capp talked about stormwater management. He discussed the construction. He noted that the College is in need of eleven offices for they are out of space for new professors. He stated that the college’s goal is to remove the modulars from the property in five years. Mr. Capp stated that Montgomery College also seeks the relocation and reconstruction of outdoor tennis courts; construction of new surface parking facilities, retention and use of a recently installed 2,568 square foot modular building that will continue to be used as additional office and administrative support space; installation and planting of additional trees and other vegetative materials as required by the Forest and Tree Preservation Ordinance, retrofit and upgrading of the site’s existing stormwater management pond to accommodate new site development. The College also submits a zoning variance of 40 feet from the 40-foot height limit of the R-S (Suburban Residential) Zone in order to construct the new science building at the building height of 80 feet. Mr. Capp stated that they worked with staff on this particular project for well over a year. Mr. Capp presented slides showing photos of the site and the proposed plans for the new Science building. In response to the Board, Mr. Capp discussed the wide variety of students attending classes and the parking situation on the campus. The number of students attending classes at Montgomery College is approximately 15,800. Mr. Capp stated that the height of the roof parapet is 55 feet and the height of the equipment screen is 68 feet and the height of some of the mechanical equipment will exceed 73 feet. He noted that they have tried everything to try to minimize the heights of the equipment. The Board discussed the details of the proposed science building, concerns about building it to code, the number of offices, laboratories, and construction time of the building. No general-purpose classrooms will be in the new science building. The new building will physically connect to the existing science east building to form a Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Complex. As a result of the connection, approximately 1,500 square feet of renovation to the existing Science East building will be required as part of the scope of this project. Mr. Capp discussed the stormwater management pond to accommodate increased stormwater generated by he planned site development. Mr. Capp discussed the ten-year Rockville Campus Master Plan for the college. He also stated that they plan to remove the modulars in five years. The Board discussed concerns regarding modulars, and what would happen when the campus is at-capacity. Mr. Capp continued to discuss the design of the proposed science building, tennis courts, new parking spaces, greenspace, and stormwater management. Mr. Capp discussed the conditions of approval. He said that they have challenges with Condition 4 regarding the provision of bus shelters, benches and concrete pads at various locations on Mannakee Street, North Campus Drive and/or MD 355. He said that their students do not use any of the bus stops along Mannakee Street. They have a bus stop located on the Rockville campus. All of their students and staff come on to the campus itself. He said he is not sure what the Administration of the College or the Board of Trustees would say to him if he were to spend money on the bus stop off Mannakee Street. This could be an issue with the College because it is not something that the College uses. In addition, Condition 5 regarding a shared use path that must be provided along the College’s street frontage on the north side of Mannakee Street and that is not on the College’s property. Mr. Capp stated that he would like to work with staff to figure out what the best solution is for the path instead of putting a burden on the College. Mr. Capp asked the Board if it would discuss the two conditions because he feels he cannot agree to fulfill those conditions when they are both off-site. The Board of Trustees may not agree to those conditions. In response to Mr. Sternstein, Mr. Chasten explained that Mr. Capp also explained the issue with the shared path at the Planning Commission meeting in that the College does not control that right-of-way and they have reservations about paying for something they do not control. Mr. Chasten said he explained to the Planning Commission that the Board has the purview to modify the condition. The shared path is so that bikes and pedestrians can use the path in going to the College. The Board discussed the language for the conditions. Mr. Capp pointed out the location of the bus stop on the campus that all students and staff use. Dr. Judy Ackerman, Vice President and Provost of the Rockville campus spoke about the bus stop on the campus. Sandra Filippi, Campus Planner stated that they went by the Comprehensive Transportation Review prepared one of their consultants who work very closely with the City of Rockville Transportation Division. They provided the only ridership data for all of the intersections in question for additional bus stop amenities and they were plotted on a graph. Ridership of 11-25 persons per day are on bus stops on Mannakee Street and according to information she obtained from the Transportation Division that for Montgomery College in the County that number does not meet the guidelines for a bus shelter. Ms. Filippi stated that the shared use path is in the City of Rockville Bicycle Master Plan. The Board further discussed the language for Conditions 4 and 5. There being no one else to speak for or against the Special Exception and Variance applications, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. DECISION Variance Application APP2007-00885, Andrew Dutka – for a six-foot variance from the rear yard set back requirement to build a twelve by twelve sunroom at 3 Purdue Court. Mr. Deitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Schwartzman to approve Variance Application APP2007-00885, Andrew Dutka per staff recommendations. The motion passed unanimously. Variance Application APP2007-00886, Catherine McAlpine-Eig – for a variance of eight feet eight inches from the front yard setback requirement for the existing house and proposed addition on the Maple Avenue frontage at 315 Baltimore Road. Mr. Deitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Schwartzman to postpone the Board’s decision on Variance Application APP2007-00886, Catherine McAlpine-Eig in order to post a new sign with the October 6th meeting date and prepare a letter for the applicant to send to the Maryland Historic Trust that states that the Board has asked for 30 more days to review the application. In addition, new notices be sent out prior to the October 6, 2007 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Variance Application APP2007-00887, Michael Salgaller – for a variance from the front yard setback requirement for the existing house and to construct a screen porch addition onto the West Gude Drive frontage of the house at 1027 Wintergreen Terrace. Mr. Schwartzman moved, seconded by Mr. Deitchman to approve Variance Application APP2007-00887, Michael Salgaller per staff recommendations. The motion passed unanimously. Variance Application APP2007-00888, James Baughman – for a variance of 6 feet from the front and 5 feet from the side yard setback requirement to construct a two-car garage at 627 Smallwood Road. Mr. Schwartzman moved, seconded by Mr. Deitchman to approve Variance Application APP2007-00888, James Baughman per staff recommendations. The motion passed unanimously. Variance Application APP2007-00889, John Mangan – for a variance from the front yard setback requirement to build a two-story addition at the rear of the existing house to accommodate an in-law suite and improved second floor at 501 West Montgomery Avenue. Mr. Deitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Schwartzman to approve Variance Application APP2007-00889, John Mangan per staff recommendations. The motion passed unanimously. Special Exception Application SPX2007-00368, and Variance Application APP2007-00884, Montgomery College Rockville – for the construction of a new Science Center Educational Building, parking lot, and tennis court on the Rockville Campus of Montgomery College. The applicant has also applied for a variance from the building height limit of the R-S Zone to construct a Science Center building that is 80 feet tall at its highest point. Mr. Deitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Schwartzman to approve Special Exception Application SPX2007-00368, and Variance Application APP2007-0884, Montgomery College Rockville per staff conditions 1-3. Condition 4 is not necessary based on the fact that the applicant has already improved the bus shelters and bus amenities at the North Campus Drive location and the Board has received into evidence that a report indicating there is insignificant student use of the other locations along Mannakee Street and MD 355. The Board would like to change Condition 5 to read that Montgomery College will work with the City in trying to get the bike path constructed and determine the funding sources needed in such an undertaking. In addition, a new Condition that reads “The temporary modular staff buildings are approved for a period of five years and if there any longer, the applicant would be required to come back before the Board. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Chasten discussed the agenda for the October 6, 2007 meeting. The Board and staff discussed the COPT appeal matter and an upcoming RORZOR briefing to the Board. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m. | 
