| Home > Government > Boards and Commissions > Board of Appeals > 2010 > Minutes > March 13, 2010 |  |
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, March 13, 2010. | |||||||||
| |||||||||
| PUBLIC HEARING Zoning Variance VAR2010-00009, New Mark Commons – a request to replace a six foot tall fence located in a front yard, which would exceed the four height limit for a fence located in a front yard of a property located in a residential zone. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Mr. Jim Denny, 514 New Mark Esplanade and Administrator for the New Mark Commons Homeowners Association (HOA) presented the applicant’s request. Mr. Denny stated that the HOA is requesting approval to replace a deteriorating six-foot tall fence on the common area property that runs along the property line that it shares with Monroe Street. Mr. Denny stated that the HOA would also like to extend the fence 140 feet towards the stream that flows off the property near the intersection of Cabin John Parkway, Waddington Circle and Monroe Street, also near the common property line that the property shares with the Fireside Park Apartments. The existing fence is green chain link and the HOA would prefer black chain link, which would blend much better into the landscape. The proposed fence would not change the current access points or block the current access points from New Mark Commons to Monroe Street. Mr. Denny described the grade change between the street grade and the greater New Mark Commons community. He stated that the fence prevents most people from climbing the hill to the townhouses and, at the same time, provide security. The grade on the property as well as the undergrounded stream is a condition peculiar to the property. Mr. Denny explained that the fence provides a sense of comfort for the community affording the occupants of the townhouses that are located closest to Monroe Street with a sense of security by limiting access to their homes and the parking lot via the wooded slopes. The fence also provides protection to the wooded area by limiting pedestrian intrusion. He also explained that a short fence would provide not discourage foot traffic up the hill into the neighborhood. In addition, the City is planning to install a sidewalk on the left side of Monroe Street from Big Oaks Court down to the entrance of Fireside Apartments, so the sidewalk would run parallel to the fence and, though the sidewalk would be nice, they want to discourage foot traffic from going up the hill. The Board inquired about the foot traffic, measurements of the fence; original motivation and need for the fence; age of the existing fence; color requirements for chain link fences; security for the residents; HOA approval for the fence; cost of the new fence and cleaning up the area; were there any complaints about the open areas in the fence; are fences allowed in New Mark Commons; whether other types of fencing materials were reviewed; color choice for the proposed fence; would a berm serve as a good barrier in lieu of a fence?; citizen concern as to whether the new fence would block off their access to Monroe Street, which goes to the Metro; and whether access to Monroe Street would compromise security? The following citizen testified: Carl Henn, 193 Hardy Place, testified that he was initially concerned about the effect of the fence regarding pedestrian access and now he is in support of the fence for he was informed that the important access point, both for New Marks Commons neighborhood, the neighborhood adjacent would not be cut off. It would prevent the students from going to Julius West Middle School, people taking the bus, or walking up to the Metro. Mr. Henn had questions about the property line and suggested ways to preserve the access point further to the south by extending the fence. Mr. Henn submitted into the record two photos (Exhibits 2A and 2B) of the access points (paths) he would like to have preserved. In response to the Board, Mr. Henn stated that the new fence will look better and he has no aesthetic concerns. He said he is a resident of Hungerford, which is one neighborhood further over and his concern is access to Monroe Street through New Mark Commons. The Board and staff discussed concerns regarding the access points. There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. DECISION Zoning Variance VAR2010-00009, New Mark Commons Mr. Deitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Maravilla to approve Zoning Variance VAR2010-00009, New Mark Commons per staff recommendations subject to modifying Condition 1 in the staff report changing the color of the fence from green to black and to make Condition 3 as Condition 4 and make a new Condition 3 that there will be openings at both ends of the fence for pedestrian pathways. The motion passed on a vote of 3-0. OLD BUSINESS Special Exception SPX2010-00380, C.C.B. School – a request that the Board of Appeals reconsider and/or rehear matters associated with its approval of the special exception allowing the establishment of a private education institution on the basement level of the church located at 800 Hurley Avenue. Jerry Headlee, 805 Hurley Avenue, explained why he was requesting the Board to reconsider or rehear the application. Mr. Headlee stated that there is not enough room for this facility in the community. He stated that he has lost four cars parked on the street in front of his house. About two and a half years ago, the Ride-on bus was added to Hurley Avenue. This bus runs every 30 minutes, which places a bus in front of the church every 15 minutes. Mr. Headlee stated that there have been 21 reported vehicular accidents and one child on a bicycle accident that occurred in the 800 block of Hurley Avenue. This is why it is extremely dangerous on Hurley Avenue with this much traffic passing through. There really is no room for this facility. He talked about the traffic impact when the Montessori School and the Korean church were in the same location. In response to Mr. Sternstein, Mr. Headlee stated that there are no traffic problems with the church, itself, because the Giant Shopping Center has allowed them to use 40 parking spaces for overflow parking on the parking lot. This school does not have this option. Numerous changes have evolved since the Temple School and the Montessori School were held in this location such as heavy traffic from the Giant parking lot after the high school is over at 2:10 pm. Mr. Headlee further explained the problems. The Board and staff discussed concerns regarding reconsideration/rehearing standards; whether there was new evidence to support the Board to reconsider/rehear the application. Mr. Deitchman pointed out that Jason Fisher, attorney with the law firm of Lerch, Early & Brewer represented the Rockshire Homeowners Association at the Board’s December 5, 2009 meeting. He asked Mr. Headlee if he was a member of the Rockshire Homeowners Association. Mr. Headlee replied that he and his wife were not members. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Headlee stated that the Transportation Division should have presented an adequate assessment of the impact of traffic in the area containing the traffic calming measures and changes in traffic configuration, the accident rate, police reports of complaints from the neighbors, and the fact that 60 students is far to many students allowed on this site. The community does not want this school because there is a similar school located near the Giant. Mr. Headlee stressed that it is not very pleasant living across the street from this type of use. The Board further discussed the reconsideration/rehearing procedures and concerns regarding Mr. Headlee’s appeal of the Board’s decision and request for reconsideration/rehearing. Soo Le-Cho, attorney with Miller, Miller & Canby on behalf of the C.C.B. School, clarified her understanding of the Board’s procedures. NEW BUSINESS MINUTES Mr. Deitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Maravilla to approve the minutes of Meeting No. 11-09 as amended. The motion passed on a vote of 3-0. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 11:16 a.m. | |||||||||