Prince George's County Board of Appeals Hearing - July 1, 2026
Prince George's County Board of Appeals Hearing - July 1, 2026
The Board of Appeals of Prince George's County, Maryland, held a virtual hearing on July 1, 2026, at 6:00 PM. The board considered one variance request and one zoning appeal, both resulting in unanimous 3-0 decisions. The meeting also included approval of previous meeting minutes and adjourned at 6:41 PM.
Consent Calendar
- Minutes Approval: The board unanimously approved the minutes from the previous meeting. Note: The agenda listed minutes from June 15, 2026, but the transcript references "minutes from our last meeting of June 17th." This discrepancy is noted; the actual date of the prior meeting is unclear from the provided materials.
Public Comments & Testimony
- No public comments from non-participants were made during the meeting.
Discussion Items
Variance Case V-32-26 – Housing Initiative Partnership (HIP)
- Petitioner: Dorothea Parker, Housing Developer for Housing Initiative Partnership (HIP), a local nonprofit that acquires and rehabilitates distressed homes for low-to-moderate income households.
- Project: Request for variances of 20 feet lot width, 12 feet lot frontage, and 12.7% lot coverage, along with a waiver of the rear yard location, to validate existing conditions and obtain permits for a covered porch, shed, fences, and an outdoor metal trash enclosure at 7614 Allendale Drive, Landover.
- Testimony: Ms. Parker explained that the property is a narrow middle unit with no side access, necessitating a front trash enclosure. The existing shed is distressed and will be replaced in kind. The property slopes backward. AJ, a contract representative, added that the lot is narrow and unique. The board questioned how HIP acquired the property (direct purchase from seller).
- Board Deliberation: Chair Bulwar noted the property was built in 1959, outside current zoning, and has sloping topography. Vice Chair Johnston and Member Stanton concurred. The board found the property physically unique and that the variance criteria were met.
Zoning Appeal V-25-26 OZA – Clifford and Brenda P. Moore
- Appellants: Clifford and Brenda Moore, owners of 4353 Southern Avenue, Capitol Heights.
- Violation: The Department of Permitting, Inspections, and Enforcement (DPIE) issued Violation Notice No. HOU-37179 for operating a boarding/rooming house (providing lodging for compensation to four or more guests) without a permit, in violation of County Code Section 27-5101(c)-(f). The property is zoned RSF-65 (Residential Single-Family-65).
- County Testimony: Attorney Khalisa Smith and Inspector Ronald Waters testified. Inspector Waters conducted an inspection on April 1, 2026, and found the property had five numbered rooms, each occupied by individual tenants paying rent. The Moors had previously obtained rental licenses under the old zoning code but were now subject to the 2022/2023 zoning rewrite.
- Appellants' Position: Clifford Moore stated they had followed county guidance since 2019, operating with three consecutive rental licenses without complaints. They argued that the house was previously abandoned and a nuisance, and that they provide affordable housing. They requested a grandfather clause to avoid displacing tenants and suffering a 40% income loss.
- Legal Clarification: Ms. Smith explained that the current code defines a rooming house as providing lodging to four or more people. The Moors cannot obtain a permit for a rooming house in the RSF-65 zone. The only legal option is to reduce tenants to three or fewer.
- Board Deliberation: Vice Chair Johnston questioned the definition and confirmed that reducing to three tenants would bring the property into compliance as a single-family rental. The board found that the county correctly issued the violation.
Key Outcomes
- Variance V-32-26: Approved unanimously (3-0). The board determined the property is physically unique and the variance meets all criteria. The approval is contingent on compliance with submitted plans and obtaining a building permit.
- Zoning Appeal V-25-26 OZA: Denied (3-0). The board upheld the violation notice, requiring the Moors to cease operating a rooming house and come into compliance, either by reducing tenants to three or fewer or by obtaining a special permit (which is not allowed in the zone). The board encouraged the Moors to work with the county to assist displaced tenants.
- Meeting Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 6:41 PM.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening, everyone. Uh the Board of Appeals hearings for Wednesday, July the 1st, 2026. Hit by call to order at 6 p.m. Our board administrator will call the roll. Chair Bulwar. Present. Vice Chair Johnston. Here. Board Member Stanton. Present. Three members present at roll call. Thank you. All right. Are there any announcements, Mr. Administrator? No, Mr. Chair. No announcements. 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. 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, and I will call upon you in turn. Our criteria for granting appeals involving variances. Pursuant to council bill CD 16-2021, 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 different from the nature of the 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 precarity 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 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 we need to seek technical assistance from any other government agency, we shall do so. The approval of variants is not a guarantee that further review will not be necessary by any other government authorities. Following the approval of variants, 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. And with that, we will call our first case involving a variance this evening. Case number V32-26. Housing initiative partnership hip.2 outdoor metal trash enclosure at 7614 Alendale Drive, Landover. Is our petitioner here with us this evening? Yes, this is Dorothea Parker, and I'm with Housing Addition of Partnership. And your address, please. My address. Okay, 6525, Bill Cressro, Suite 555, Highsville, Maryland, 20782. Okay. Do we have any other um witnesses on this case this evening? Let's see. Uh is AJ from Greater Heights on Yes.
openpublica.com