Mr. Sternstein announced that the second item on the agenda has been postponed. PUBLIC HEARING 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. The Staff Report was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. NOTE: This Variance application is being continued from the September 8, 2007 meeting in order to provide additional time for notification to address concerns expressed by the residents. 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. 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 Mr. Deitchman, Ms. Hall explained that the house is currently setback sixteen feet 4 inches from what is called the Maple Avenue frontage. Corner lots have two required front setbacks. The Zoning Ordinance requires that the rear yard be opposite the front yard. Therefore, if there are two true fronts, which this property has, they can be flip-flopped to where the rear setback and the side setback are located. Zoning does not care which way the house faces. The renovation plan intends to modify the orientation of the home with a main entry facing Maple Avenue. Under this plan, a variance of eight feet eight inches is necessary for the existing house and addition and would preserve the existing placement of the original house and allow for a side yard line perpendicular to Maple Avenue and parallel to Baltimore Road subsequent to the approved subdivision of the property. The proposed modification would then orient the rear yard setback as perpendicular to Baltimore Road and parallel to Maple Avenue. A driveway would be added off Maple Avenue. The Board and staff discussed the many irregular lots in the neighborhood, the setbacks, and the removal of a portion of the house due to heavy damage. In response to Vanessa Strunk, 410 Reading Avenue, Ms. Eig stated that only one Maple tree would be removed due to construction. Barbara Carver, 312 Reading Avenue inquired whether there would be any construction if the variance were not granted. Ms. Eig stated that the house, as it stands, is too close to the street. Therefore, if the house were to burn down, it could not be put back up in the same location. It would have to be pushed back about eight feet 8 inches. The following citizens testified in opposition to the application: 1. Marilyn Al-Mansoor, 214 Baltimore Road, submitted a joint testament signed by neighbors of 315 Baltimore Road as Exhibit 2. Ms. Al-Mansoor testified for her neighbors. She said they are concerned property owners objecting to the proposed variance of the Maple Avenue frontage of 315 Baltimore Road. Ms. Al-Mansoor stated that they have been informed that this hearing is not about the prior subdivision of the property. They have been told that the setback variance only applies to a small part of the proposed Maple Avenue addition. One City worker even suggested that they were not being good neighbors because they are questioning the request for variance. Ms. Al-Mansoor stated that it is true that a one-story flat roof addition to the original house stands currently in violation of the setback and that it would be removed. However, the new addition is much larger and contains three floors, a basement, and a first and second floor. Therefore, the massing is much greater and the visual impact quite large and distinct from the single back room that now exists. It is not fair to say this addition is only a few feet of changes given these distinct designs and differences in massing.
Ms. Al-Mansoor said that they have been told that if they do not object to the original house being in violation of the setback then they should not object to the new addition receiving the variance. However, the treatment of an existing property is and should be distinct from the evaluation of proposed new construction. The house was built before zoning restrictions. The addition had not been built. She asked whether the same could be said for the setback requirements. The City should respect setback requirements on new construction even if the original structure is in violation. Ms. Al-Mansoor asked whether a smaller, longer addition generate the same square feet without compromising the setback requirements. Indeed, smaller Victorian houses in this neighborhood have smaller back additions, which are compatible with the original property and the characteristics of the neighborhood. Ms. Al-Mansoor asked whether the reason the owners did not consider an addition such as they suggested was that by doing so they would be in violation of the setback they themselves created by subdividing the property into two lots? Ms. Al-Mansoor stated that the neighborhood was inaccurately informed about the subdivision. The postcard the neighbors received appears to have spoken of consolidation of three lots into two, not a subdivision. The layperson would interpret this as making a larger lot from two smaller ones. Ms. Al-Mansoor stated that the applicant spoke of problems in delays from the state and local Historic District Commissions. Some of them have had substantial experience dealing with Maryland Historic Trust and found them to be both very accessible and quick to evaluate changes in plans. She noted that they do not expect an addition that meets the setback would be problematic or slow construction unduly. Finally, there is the question of fairness. Surely, the purchasers realized they were buying a corner lot prior to their decision to purchase the home. The market price of the property should have reflected the limitations of building close to Maple Avenue and been reduced accordingly. They believe the owners have already been compensated for their choice through a lower price for this lot relative to a center block lot with fewer restrictions. Any additional variance is simply a subsidy. Ms. Al-Mansoor stated that they do not see how, in fairness, any other homeowner in the neighborhood seeking a variance to build outside the zoning requirements can be denied if it is granted in this case. Setbacks are one of the few tools available to preserve the integrity of an old and beautiful neighborhood such as theirs. In response to Mr. Sternstein, Ms. Al-Mansoor stated that she would prefer that homeowners stay within the setback requirements for she believes that no variances should be granted. In response to Mr. Maravilla, Ms. Al-Mansoor stated that this is a square lot and she and the neighbors are concerned that this will set a precedent. The Board further discussed and explained to the residents about the setback requirements, asked why the residents believe that granting the variance would set a precedent and whether there had been other similar variances granted in the neighborhood. 2. Vanessa Strunk, 400 Reading Avenue, stated that she did receive approval of a variance in 2003 for extending the back of her house. She noted a few differences between her variance and the applicant’s variance. She said the applicant’s proposal is too large for the neighborhood and that is why there are regulations to maintain the integrity of their neighborhood. She sees McMansions popping up everywhere. She said she is at a loss as to what to do about this issue. She recommended that the Board look at the bigger picture. Mr. Sternstein noted that this property is limited to one setback and if the variance were not granted, it would still go on. Mr. Deitchman stated that the Board has to focus on the impact the variance would have on the neighborhood 3. Tom McCool, 709 Grandin Avenue, said he opposed the application and signed the neighborhood letter. He also suggested improving the City’s notification by including the time and place of the meeting. 4. Janet McCool, 709 Grandin Avenue, stated that she is a member of the Historic District Commission, but she wanted to point out that the signage on the applicant’s property for the hearing did not include the time or place of the meeting. The Board and Staff explained that there was an error, but these postcards were sent out because there was a particular issue in this case about public hearing regarding additional information. In staff’s effort to supply more notice, some information was missed. Staff apologized to the residents. Mr. Deitchman pointed out that staff is really only required to send out notices to residents living 200 feet surrounding the subject property. This requirement was changed some years ago to send out notices far beyond what is required. Therefore, staff does make a great effort to notify way beyond the subject property. 5. Wayne Goldstein, 3009 Jennings Avenue, Kensington, MD, stated that he was not testifying and was not either in support or opposition of the application. He said that he was the President of Montgomery Preservation Inc. and President of the Montgomery County Civic Federation. He is also a member of the Planning and Land Use Committee. He said he was asked by the residents to participate in this event. He read some excerpts from the Montgomery County Zoning Ordinance regarding definitions of variances, practical difficulty, signage, and notification. The Board questioned Mr. Goldstein why he was reading Montgomery County requirements. Mr. Goldstein replied that he was providing the Board with information, comments and concerns of the residents as well as other cases in Montgomery County similar to this case. The Board members reminded Mr. Goldstein that this is the City, not the County. There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. DECISION Variance Application APP2007-00886, Catherine McAlpine-Eig Mr. Deitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Schwartzman to approve Variance Application APP2007-00886, Catherine McAlpine-Eig based on the staff recommendations and testimony presented at the public hearing today. The additional information that was used to make the Board’s findings included: (1) The uniqueness of the subject property as a corner lot with setbacks established by a structure having historical designation; (2) The design has been approved by the Historic District Commission; (3) There were significant neighborhood concerns about the massing of the proposal and this Board understood this, but found that the aspects of the overall proposal causing this concern did not include the aspects involving the variance itself. (4) In the testimony presented today, the Board could not find significant adverse impact on the public interest caused by the proposed variance itself; (5) though there was a discussion of a precedent set by granting any setback, there had been previous setbacks granted in this neighborhood and that this particular variance is not perceived as granting any new precedent; (6) Part of the rational that, in the absence of adverse impact from the variance the Board does take recognition of the HDC findings, understanding that they do not consider variance requests, but they did consider other factors. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS The Board discussed the COPT appeal and the moratorium. MINUTES Mr. Deitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Schwartzman to approve the minutes of Meeting No. 4-05 as amended. The motion passed on a vote of 3-0-1 with Mr. Maravilla abstaining. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 11:30 a.m.
| 
