| Home > Government > Boards and Commissions > Board of Appeals > 2008 > Minutes > December 6, 2008 Minutes |  |
City of Rockville Board of Appeals Mayor and Council Chambers The City of Rockville Board of Appeals convened in regular session in the Council Room, Rockville City Hall at 9:30 a.m., Saturday, December 6, 2008. | ||||||
| ||||||
| Time Extension Request, Special Exception SPX2007-00370, Twinbrook Community Church, Twinbrook Christian School, 5906 Halpine Road. Senior Pastor John Bayles explained the reasons for his request. Pastor Bayles stated that five months ago, they were granted a six-month time extension in order to complete the use permit process. During the last five months, they have encountered a number of engineering issues and delays associated with discovering problems that arise in having an old building. These issues have caused them to rearrange their overall plans, including completing the Use Permit items, especially the final phases. In finalizing the use permit items, the engineers have placed them on several occasions in a “start/stop” dynamic during which they have had to submit to their work priorities as well as their own. At a recent meeting with Mr. Chasten, they concluded that they are close to getting the use permit conditions completed, but not close enough to chance failing to comply by the next due date. This is why they are now requesting the last six-month time extension to their Special Exception. After further discussion, Mr. Sternstein moved, seconded by Mr. Deitchman to approve a final six-month time extension for Special Exception SPX2007-00370, Twinbrook Community Church, Twinbrook Christian School. The motion passed on a vote of 2-0. Mr. Maravilla was absent. Mr. Maravilla joined the Board of Appeals at 9:35 am. PUBLIC HEARING Variance Application APP2008-00900, Anna Maria Stivers – for a fifteen-inch fence height variance for a fence located in the front yard along Adclare Road. The property is located at 717 Roxboro Road. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Donna Stivers presented the applicant’s request. Ms. Stivers stated that they are asking for a fifteen-inch variance for the lattice on top of the fence. She stated that the reason for the lattice is because they have had problems with a fox jumping over their fence and her mother is very worried that the fox would harm her small dogs. Ms. Stivers stated that their neighbors have no objection to the fence. She stated that the fence is transparent and does not cause any sightline issues. Ms. Stivers explained that a variance is requested because their house is located on a corner lot. Ms. Stivers stated that the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because the fence is reasonably transparent and, as such, does not cause any sightline issues normally associated with taller fences on a corner lot. It is also set back twenty-five feet from the corner. The variance as requested is not the result of any action taken by the applicant because, for the most part, there is no reason to enter the Roxboro neighborhood unless one lives there or for those who are visiting someone in the neighborhood. The Rockville Nursing Home and the Rockville Christian Church occupy properties that are located between the neighborhood and Interstate 270. Adclare Road must be used to access these facilities. As a result, compared to most of the community, Adclare Road is a busy roadway that also carries non-neighborhood related traffic. Furthermore, the removal of the lattice portion of the fence would bring it into compliance with the fence height limitations for fences in the front yard. Removing the lattice would result in the loss of the time and money spent on its erection, and would also result in a loss of privacy from the traffic on Adclare Road and the protection it provides from wildlife in the area. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Ms. Stivers stated that her mother did apply for a fence permit to construct the fence, but it did not include the lattice. A family member put on the lattice after they had the issue with the fox. The following citizen testified: Marty Metski, 715 Roxboro Road, testified in favor of the application. Mr. Metski explained that he lives to the right of the applicant’s house. Before the lattice was put on the fence, a fox did jump over the fence. Mr. Metski noted that, since the lattice has been installed, the fox has not been jumping over the Stivers’ fence. He explained that he walks his dog very early in the mornings and before the lattice was installed, his dog became very excited when he saw the fox jump over the applicant’s fence. Since then, he and his dog have not seen the fox. Mr. Metski stated that the fence with the lattice looks much better. He also noted that the fence does not impede his vision when walking or driving around that corner. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Ms. Hall stated that the fence would not be an issue if the fence had been installed along the side of the subject house and on back to the rear property line. A variance is being requested because fences located closer to the street than the house are limited to forty-two inches in height. This fence was constructed at fifty-seven inches in height, requiring a variance of fifteen inches for its retention. There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. Variance Application APP2008-00902, Dorothy Beach – for a three-foot variance from the side street abutting setback requirement in order to construct a sunroom addition at 200 North Van Buren Street. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Ms. Beach presented her request for a sunroom addition. Ms. Beach explained to the Board that her lot is improved with a two-story residence and a couple of small sheds in the back yard. Ms. Beach stated that she has owned her house since 1966. Many years ago, ten feet of the width of her property was taken for the widening of Beall Avenue. She stated that she needs a variance for a small corner of her property in order to build the addition. Ms. Hall stated that some of the property was taken in 1958. Ms. Beach stated that when she bought the house, she did not know anything about the taking. She found out when she applied for the variance. Ms. Beach explained that her house is somewhat of a “T” shape. The sunroom is proposed as a connecting area between where the twenty-five foot deep portion of the addition that does not need a variance meets the 16.7-foot deep rear portion of the house. In response to Mr. Sternstein, Ms. Hall added to the explanation of the variance reason for Ms. Beach. Ms. Beach covered the findings required in order for the Board to approve her variance. Ms. Beach stated that the variance as requested would not be contrary to the public interest because the existing house is located 15.7 feet from the Beall Avenue property line. The sunroom addition is proposed to be located seventeen feet away from the property line. Since the proposed addition is set back further than the existing house, there are no new sightline issues associated with it or any precedent being set with the small encroachment. Ms. Beach stated that the taking of ten feet of depth along the Beall Avenue frontage for right-of-way widening caused the condition that this house is not located as far away from Beall Avenue as standards require. The taking is clearly a condition that is peculiar to this property and is not the result of any action taken by her. Ms. Beach stated a literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in practical difficulty. She stated that the two-car garage and living space portion of the addition do not encroach into the front setback requirement. The sunroom and the space above it are meant to mesh the old and new portions of the house due to its “T” shaped configuration and at the same time, create functionally sized living space. Reducing the sunroom by three feet in width would reduce the functionality of the sunroom that would also be used for access to the house from the garage. Mr. Chasten noted that if Ms. Beach had waited longer, the new Zoning Ordinance would have allowed her to build her addition without a variance. But, Ms. Beach wanted to move forward. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Ms. Beach explained that the wind blew the public notice sign down and she had it fixed to stand up once again. There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. DECISION Variance Application APP2008-00900, Anna Maria Stivers Mr. Sternstein moved, seconded by Mr. Maravilla to approve Variance Application APP2008-00900, Anna Maria Stivers per staff recommendations. Mr. Sternstein noted the legitimacy of the height of the fence in that it would provide protection from wildlife. The motion passed on a vote of 3-0. Variance Application APP2008-00902, Dorothy Beach Mr. Maravilla moved, seconded by Mr. Sternstein to approve Variance Application APP2008-00902, Dorothy Beach per staff recommendations. The motion passed on a vote of 3-0. MINUTES Mr. Sternstein moved, seconded by Mr. Maravilla to approve the minutes of Meeting No. 8-08 as amended. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS The Board discussed its concern regarding the vacancy on the Board. The Board concurred with the Board of Appeals Calendar of Meetings & Application Deadlines for Year 2009. The Board nominated Christopher Maravilla as the Chair for 2009. Mr. Chasten informed the Board that St. Elizabeth’s would be coming before the Board regarding complaints about the noise from its bell tower. He stated that the application might before the Board at its January 10, 2009 meeting. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 11:03 a.m. | ||||||