Prince George's County Board of Appeals Hearing – June 3, 2026
Prince George's County Board of Appeals Hearing – June 3, 2026
The Prince George's County Board of Appeals held a virtual hearing on June 3, 2026, at 6:01 PM, chaired by Chair Bulware. The board heard five new variance and security exemption cases and one continued discussion case. Decisions resulted in three approvals, one denial, and two cases postponed due to petitioner absence. The meeting adjourned at 7:06 PM.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Sharon and Anthony Morrison (neighbors of 15601 Taylerton Lane) testified in opposition to V-23-26, the Reeds' request for a 10-foot security exemption fence for a basketball court. They stated that basketballs frequently entered their yard, that there was no communication from the Reeds, and that a 10-foot fence was unnecessary. They requested clarification on setback requirements for fences over 6 feet and noted the proposed fence only covered two sides, not all four.
Discussion Items
- V-1-26 (Carlos Perez del Cid and Maria D. Rodriguez Chinchilla) – A request for variances to validate existing conditions (covering a deck, shed, and driveway) at 4407 Sellman Road, Beltsville. The petitioners did not join the meeting, and the Spanish-language interpreter had already been excused. The case was rescheduled.
- V-17-26 (Juan Guzman) – A request for variances for a proposed driveway at 1406 Nye Street, Capitol Heights. The petitioner was not present, and the interpreter was no longer available. The case was rescheduled.
- V-19-26 (Adassa Grant) – A request for variances of 30 feet lot width, 18 feet lot frontage, and a parking area waiver to build a 10' x 33' concrete driveway at 6904 Flagstaff Street, Landover. Ms. Grant testified that her lot is unusually narrow, she currently has no driveway, and she has medical issues that make walking from street parking difficult. The board noted the lot's uniqueness and that neighbors have driveways. Approved unanimously.
- V-23-26 (Folake F and Lenardo T Reed) – A request for a security exemption for a 10-foot white vinyl fence around a basketball court at 15601 Taylerton Lane, Brandywine. The Reeds argued their lot is the first in the neighborhood, creating unique traffic and safety risks; balls frequently go into neighbor yards and woods, which contain copperhead snakes and poisonous spiders; a 6-foot fence would not contain the balls. Opposing neighbors (Morrisons) stated balls were a nuisance and questioned the fence's placement and the need for 10 feet. The board discussed that a 10-foot fence was excessive and the request did not meet the security exemption criteria. A motion to deny the variance passed. Denied 3–0. The board noted that a 6-foot fence is allowable by code in the rear yard and encouraged the parties to resolve the issue.
- V-24-26 (Houston Jerami Grant) – A request for a variance of 43.4 feet lot frontage and a security exemption for a 6-foot wrought iron fence in the front yard (2 feet above allowable height) for a pool at 2908 Westbrook Lane, Bowie. Attorney Drew Cole and architect Alex Davis testified the property is uniquely narrow at the front with a conservation easement and an adjacent access road; a 6-foot fence is consistent with other neighborhood fences and needed to deter burglaries targeting professional athletes. Approved unanimously.
- V-80-25 (Loving Memory Revocable Living Trust) – Continued from the previous meeting. The petitioner had been required to pay fines to the Town of Capitol Heights for unauthorized construction at 915 Brooke Road, Capitol Heights. Evidence of payment was provided, and the town raised no objection. The board noted the petitioner acted in good faith after being misled by a contractor. Approved unanimously.
Key Outcomes
- V-19-26 (Adassa Grant): Approved 3–0.
- V-23-26 (Folake F and Lenardo T Reed): Denied 3–0.
- V-24-26 (Houston Jerami Grant): Approved 3–0.
- V-80-25 (Loving Memory Revocable Living Trust): Approved 3–0.
- V-1-26 and V-17-26: Postponed due to petitioner absence; staff will reschedule.
- Minutes from May 20, 2026: Approved 3–0.
Meeting Transcript
My apologies, Mr. Chair. Understood. Recording in progress. All right, there we go. Well, good evening, everyone. The Board of Appeals hearings for Wednesday, June 3rd, 2026. Hereby call to order at 6.01 p.m. or ask our board administrator to call the roll. Chair Bulware. Present. Vice Chair Johnston. Present. Board member stand. Three members present at roll call. Thank you. Are there any announcements? No, Mr. Chair. Okay. The Board of Appeals in-person meetings and our hearings continue to operate virtually using alternative public participation options, including utilization of digital technology or teleconferencing. 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 and I will 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 the 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. So strict application of the provision will result and unusual practical difficulties to the owner 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 master plan, sector plan, or transit district development plan affecting the subject property, and 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 governmental agency, we shall do so. The approval of a variance is not a guarantee that further review will not be necessary by any other governmental authorities. And following the approval of the 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 development of the property in compliance with the board's approved site and elevation plans. With that, we'll call our first case this evening. A DASA grant, a request for variances of 30 feet lot width, 18 feet lot frontage, and a waiver of the parking area location requirement to validate existing conditions, lot width, lot frontage, and to obtain a building permit for the construction of a 10 by 33 concrete driveway, a 6904 Flagstaff Street, Landover, Maryland. Ms. Grant, are you with us this evening? Yes, I am. Okay. Um could you please state your name and your address for the record? Adessa Grant, 6904, Flagstaff Street, Landova, Maryland, 2078. Do we have any other witnesses testifying on this case this evening? Any other witnesses testifying on this case. Okay. Ms. Gordon, would you please swear in our petitioner?
openpublica.com