Prince George's County Board of Appeals Hearing - May 6, 2026
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Prince George's County Board of Appeals Hearing - May 6, 2026
The Prince George's County Board of Appeals held a virtual hearing at 6:00 PM on May 6, 2026. The board considered three variance applications and one zoning appeal, all related to property modifications. The meeting was chaired by Chair Bulware, with Vice Chair Johnston and Board Member Stanton present. The board approved two variances, denied one, and affirmed a county violation notice. The meeting adjourned at 8:17 PM.
Consent Calendar
- Minutes from April 22, 2026: Approved unanimously (3-0).
Public Comments & Testimony
- V-14-26 (Arevalo): Neighbors Edith Moore and Karen Ross testified in opposition. Moore cited unauthorized modifications, room rentals, and safety concerns; Ross argued the driveway widening would create a safety hazard and eyesore. Applicant's daughter Marisa Arevalo testified in support, stating the driveway was damaged and that neighbors were unfriendly.
- V-12-26 (Jones): Neighbors Edward Stonework and Cheryl Johnson testified that the Jones' fence encroached on their properties. Stonework presented surveys showing encroachment of up to 9.4 feet (later reduced); Johnson presented a survey indicating 7 feet of encroachment.
Discussion Items
- V-7-26 (Cardenas): Kenia Cardenas requested variances of 1,500 sq ft net lot area, 15 ft lot width, 8 ft front yard depth, and a parking waiver to validate an existing driveway extension. Inspector Swan confirmed a site road approval was on file. The board noted the property was subdivided in 1941 and has extreme narrowness and sloping. No public opposition was heard. The variance was approved.
- V-14-26 (Arevalo): Blanca Arevalo requested variances for net lot area, lot width, lot coverage, and a waiver for an unauthorized driveway extension (3'x28' extension and 10'x18' parking pad). She stated she repaired a damaged driveway to address water runoff and was unaware of permit requirements. Her daughter testified that neighbors were unfriendly. Inspector Swan described the work as an extensive expansion, not a simple repair, and noted potential runoff impacts. The board concluded the difficulty was self-inflicted and that strict application of zoning provisions would not cause peculiar hardship, especially given opposition from neighbors. The variance was denied.
- V-81-25 (Mukum): Donatus Mukum requested variances of 656 sq ft net lot area, 4.8 ft lot width, and 12.2% lot coverage to validate existing conditions and build a roof over an existing masonry porch. Architect Jonathan Campbell explained that the contractor failed to obtain permits and the lot occupancy was already exceeded. The city of Capitol Heights submitted a letter of support. No public opposition. The variance was approved.
- V-12-26 (Jones): Glenn and Muriel Jones appealed a violation notice requiring them to move a 6-foot fence that the county determined encroached on neighboring properties. The county presented an independent survey showing 4.3 and 6.7 inches of encroachment. The Joneses argued their own survey (by Soltez) placed the fence entirely within their property, and they submitted a woodland conservation plan that they claimed confirmed the fence's location. Chief Inspector Bridingham noted Soltez declined to re-survey with county witnesses. The board found the county's independent survey credible and affirmed the violation notice.
Key Outcomes
- V-7-26: Motion to approve (made by Vice Chair Johnston, seconded by Member Stanton). Carried 3-0.
- V-14-26: Motion to deny (made by Member Stanton, seconded by Vice Chair Johnston). Carried 3-0.
- V-81-25: Motion to approve (made by Vice Chair Johnston, seconded by Member Stanton). Carried 3-0.
- V-12-26: Motion to affirm the county's violation notice (made by Vice Chair Johnston, seconded by Member Stanton). Carried 3-0.
- Minutes: Approved 3-0.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening, everyone. Uh call this board of appeals meeting for May the 6th, 2026 to order at 6 p.m. Our board administrator will call the role. Yes, um, Chair Bulware. Present? Vice Chair Johnston. Present. Board Member Stan. Present. Three members present at roll call. Thank you. Are there any announcements? No announcements, Mr. Chair. All right. Um again, good evening, everyone. The Board of Appeals in-person meetings and her hearings continue to operate virtually using alternative public participation options and cute including utilization of digital technology or teleconferencing. Our virtual hearings are recorded and transcribed during the meeting, so please state your name for the record each time you speak. For clarity and transcription, please do not speak over another person. If you wish to speak, please raise your hand to be called upon. I'll call upon you in turn. Our criteria for granting appeals involving variances. Pursuant to council bill CB16-2021, section 27-3613, subsection D of the zoning ordinance authorizes the board to grant variances when a specific parcel of land is physically unique and unusual in a manner different from the nature of surrounding properties with respect to exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape, exceptional topographic conditions, or other extraordinary conditions peculiar to a specific parcel, such as historical significance or environmentally sensitive features. The particular uniqueness and peculiarity of the specific property causes a zoning provision to impact disproportionately upon that property. Such that strict application of the provision will result in peculiar and unusual practical difficulties to the owner of the property. Such variance is the minimum reasonably necessary to overcome the exceptional physical conditions. Such variants can be granted without substantial impairment to the intent, purpose, and integrity of the general plan or any area of master plan, sector plan, or transit district development plan affecting the subject property. And subject such variants will not substantially impair the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a variance may not be granted if the practical difficulty is self-inflicted by the owner of the property. All of these criteria must apply. If the board determines that it needs to seek technical assistance from any other government agency, we shall do so. Their approval of the variance is not a guarantee that further review will not be necessary by any other government authorities. Following the approval of a variance, a building permit must be obtained. Before any building permits will be processed by the county permits office, a copy of the board's written order must be presented. Approval of any variance is contingent upon the development of the property in compliance with the board's approved site and elevation plans. Request for variances of 1,500 square feet net lot area, 15 feet lot width, 8 feet front yard depth, and a waiver of the parking location to validate existing conditions, net lot area, lot width, and front yard depth, and obtain a building permit for the extension of the driveway and front of the house at 1309 Gnome Street, Capitol Heights, Maryland. Mr. Luna, are you with us this evening? Yes, sir. All right, Mr. Luna. I'm gonna have our board attorney swear you in. Do you want to ask him to put his information on it? Yes, thank you, Miss Garner. Appreciate you. Um Mr. Luna, please state your name and your address for the record. Um good evening, Ernesto Luna 4600, Connecticut Avenue Northwest, apartment 216, Washington, D.C. 2000 eight. Thank you.
openpublica.com