Zoning Hearing Examiner Hearing on Validation of Permits Issued in Error – May 6, 2026

On May 6, 2026, at 9:30 AM, Prince George's County Zoning Hearing Examiner Maureen McNeil conducted a virtual hearing on case ERR-001-2026. The applicant, Eucharia Ogu, requested validation of two permits issued in error: Permit No. 31752-2020-RGU (building addition) and Permit No. 41406-2018-RGW/01 (fence and ramp) for property at 6313 Joyce Drive, Temple Hills, Maryland, in the RSF-95 (Residential Single-Family) zone. The permits enabled the construction of a 2,460-square-foot addition and a six-foot-high perimeter fence for a congregate living facility (assisted living) currently serving up to eight residents. The applicant seeks validation to move forward with a special exception to expand the facility to accommodate up to 20 residents.

Public Comments & Testimony

• One member of the public, Ms. Jackson, attended but stated she was only listening and had no comments.

Discussion Items

• Applicant's Testimony (Eucharia Ogu): She purchased the property in 2018 and has operated an assisted living facility with eight residents since 2018. The addition and fence were built based on permits that were issued after county staff instructed her architect to remove references to the assisted living use from the applications. The addition (costing $300,000–$500,000) is complete but vacant pending the special exception. The fence (costing $13,000–$14,000) was installed for resident safety due to nearby busy roads. No citations or community complaints have been received.
• Architect Testimony (Darren Comedy, DC Design Group): He confirmed that the original commercial permit application (filed and reviewed as a congregate living facility) was canceled at the recommendation of county planning staff. A new residential permit was issued after removing all references to assisted living, with commercial fees transferred. The building was designed for 20 residents, and all parties knew a special exception would be required. The fence was six feet high as needed for safety, but the zoning code requires 48 inches in certain areas. The building addition setback is 10 feet instead of the required 20 feet for residential or commercial use.
• Opposing Counsel (Stan Brown, People's Owning Council): He argued that the hearing should focus solely on validating the permits for the residential structure and fence—not on the future assisted living use. He noted that the fence is in prohibited side and front yards and that a variance from the Board of Appeals could have been sought. He also stated that the building itself is a non-conforming structure due to insufficient setback.
• Hearing Examiner's Clarifications: She asked for a revised site plan without references to the special exception, a statement explaining why the case proceeds under the prior zoning ordinance (since the special exception was filed before the zoning code change), and documentation of fence expenses. She noted that the record would remain open for submission of these items.

Key Outcomes

• The hearing examiner left the record open for the applicant to submit: (1) a revised site plan showing the building addition and fence without references to the special exception; (2) a revised statement of justification explaining why the case is under the prior zoning ordinance; and (3) receipts or documentation for fence expenses. The record will close upon receipt of these documents, and a decision will be rendered shortly thereafter.
• No votes were taken; the hearing was evidentiary in nature.