OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Prince Georges County, Maryland/County Council & Boards
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Prince George's County Board of Appeals Hearing - September 23, 2026

County Council & Boards — Wednesday, September 23, 2026
BodyPrince Georges County, Maryland
SessionCounty Council & Boards
DateWednesday, September 23, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:04:34

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it
0:00

Good evening, everyone.

0:01

The Board of Appeals hearings for Wednesday, September 23rd, 2026, or hit by call to order.

0:07

I'll ask our board administrator to call the roll.

0:10

Chair Bulware.

0:11

Present.

0:13

Vice Chair Johnston.

0:18

Vice Chair Johnston.

0:20

She's working.

0:21

There she is.

0:22

Uh here.

0:24

Thank you.

0:25

Board member stand.

0:27

Here.

0:28

Three members present at roll call.

0:30

Thank you.

0:31

Are there any announcements?

0:33

Yes, Mr.

0:34

Chair.

0:35

V926.

0:37

Um, they submitted some information that changed the scope of the variance request, and we need to reschedule.

0:43

V2126.

0:46

Um is rescheduled to October 7th per the petitioner's request.

0:52

Okay.

0:54

And a minor um change on AA 1777.

1:01

Uh, we uh inadvertently left a T off of Robert.

1:04

So we apologize to the appellant for the misspelling.

1:09

Indeed.

1:10

Anything else?

1:12

I don't know if there's anyone here for V926 and V2126 that can um sign off now.

1:20

All right, great.

1:22

The Board of Appeals in-person meetings or indoor hearings continue to operate virtually using alternative public participation options, including utilization of digital technology or teleconferencing.

1:34

Virtual hearings are recorded and transcribed during the meeting, so please state your name for the record each time you speak.

1:39

For clarity and transcription, please do not speak over another person.

1:43

If you wish to speak, please raise your hand and I will call upon you in turn.

1:47

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.

2:20

The particular uniqueness and peculiarity of the specific property causes a zoning provision to impact disproportionately upon that property.

2:29

Such that strict application of the preserv of the provision will result in peculiar and unusual practical difficulties to the owner of the property.

2:35

Such variance is the minimum reasonably necessary to overcome the exceptional physical conditions.

2:41

Such variants can be granted without substantial impairment to the intent, purpose, or 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.

2:58

Notwithstanding any other provision of the section, a variance may not be granted if the practical difficulty is self-inflicted by the owner of the property.

3:07

All of these criteria must apply.

3:10

If the board determines that it needs to seek technical assistance from any other government agency, we shall do so.

3:16

The approval of variants is not a guarantee that further review will not be necessary by any other government authorities.

3:22

Or an integrity following the approval of the variance, a building permit must be obtained.

3:26

Sector plan before any building permits will be processed by the county permits office.

3:30

A copy of the board's written order must be presented.

3:33

Approval of any variance is contingent upon the development of that property in compliance with the board's approved site and elevation plans.

3:41

And with that, we'll move to our first case on our agenda this evening.

4:03

Yes.

4:04

This is a request for variances of 9,389 square feet, not lot net lot area, 2.7% lot coverage, five feet front yard depth, one foot side yard width, and a waiver of the parking area location requirement and a one-foot sideline line setback for an accessory building to validate existing conditions, net lot area, front yard depth, side yard width, parking area location, and obtained a building permit for the unauthorized construction of a 13 by 23.85 shed at 2603 Lackawana Street Adelphi.

4:44

First, we're going to ask Ms.

4:46

Garner to swear in our translator, Miss Balku.

4:51

Thank you.

4:53

Do you solemnly swear or affirmed under the penalties of perjury to interpret accurately, completely and impartially, and to refrain from knowingly disclosing confidential or privileged information obtained while serving in this proceeding?

5:06

I go thank you.

5:09

Okay.

5:10

Um next are our petitioners with us this evening.

5:26

Okay.

5:34

Yes, uh let that go.

5:39

Okay.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning And Land Use█████████████████████████████████████████████64%
Procedural██████████14%
Homeowners Associations████████11%
Public Works████5%
Historic Preservation███4%
Public Engagement█2%
Summary of Proceedings

Prince George's County Board of Appeals Hearing - September 23, 2026

The Board of Appeals for Prince George's County, Maryland, met virtually on September 23, 2026, at 6:00 PM to consider four variance requests, one zoning appeal, and the approval of prior meeting minutes. All five agenda items were decided unanimously (3-0). The board approved variances for three properties, denied one variance due to self-inflicted hardship, and affirmed the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission's zoning interpretation on farm-based alcohol production.

Announcements

  • V-9-26 (JAV General Service, LLC) was rescheduled after the petitioner submitted information changing the scope of the variance request.
  • V-21-26 (Suco Wash LLC) was rescheduled to October 7, 2026, at the petitioner's request.
  • The board corrected the spelling of appellant Robert Rose's name in AA-1777 (inadvertently omitted 't').

Consent Calendar

  • The board approved the minutes from the September 9, 2026, meeting by unanimous vote (3-0).

Public Comments & Testimony

  • In V-29-26, neighbor Ann Williams (6009 43rd Avenue) testified in support of the project, expressing practical concerns about proximity and height that were addressed by the architect. She affirmed her support.
  • In V-31-26, contractor Nathaniel Wilson (8813 Jolly Drive, Fort Washington) testified that he was hired after the violation and assisted with paperwork; he was not involved in the original construction.
  • In AA-1777, appellant Robert Rose and planning attorney Laura Tallarico presented extensive arguments regarding the status of the homeowners association and the interpretation of subdivision plat notes.

Discussion Items

V-22-26: Masresha Wolde and Tiruwork Testu (Amharic translation provided)

  • Requested variances of 9,389 sq ft net lot area, 2.7% lot coverage, 5 ft front yard depth, 1 ft side yard width, a waiver of parking area location, and 1 ft side setback for an accessory building to validate an unauthorized 13' x 23.85' shed at 2603 Lackawanna Street, Adelphi.
  • Petitioners stated the shed was needed for storage due to lack of space, and that they had owned the home since 2015. The work was done without a permit, and they received a stop-work order, which they immediately complied with. A supervisor reportedly approved the quality of construction.
  • Inspector Swan confirmed no enforcement action on the property.
  • The board found the property had irregular shape and sloping issues, and that the owners acted in good faith.
  • Approved unanimously (3-0).

V-29-26: Eric Winkler and Alison Roach

  • Requested variances of 483 sq ft net lot area, 4.98 ft lot width, 9.2% lot coverage, 2.5 ft front yard depth, and 1 ft left side yard width to construct a one-story addition at 6010 43rd Street, Hyattsville.
  • Petitioners explained the addition was to provide accessible housing for Alison's elderly mother, a retired nurse with health issues. They emphasized the immediate need and the lack of alternatives.
  • Architect Michael Romero detailed that the addition would replace a deteriorating porch and deck, and that the lot's irregular geometry and existing garage (built 70-80 years ago) contributed to the nonconformities. The addition was designed to be wheelchair accessible.
  • Neighbor Ann Williams voiced support but asked about setback and height; the architect clarified the worst-case rear setback was 20 ft 4 inches, and the new structure would be smaller than the existing deck footprint.
  • A letter of approval from Hyattsville was noted.
  • Approved unanimously (3-0).

V-31-26: Floarine D. and Herman L. King

  • Requested a variance of 3% lot coverage to validate an existing 696 sq ft accessory building (shed) at 8603 Dorian Lane, Clinton.
  • Mr. King testified the shed was used for storage, an office, and exercise equipment. The original structure predated 10 years, with an extension added more recently (inspector confirmed the addition was from 2019). The Kings did not have a permit for the extension and were unaware of the lot coverage limit.
  • Inspector Swan stated the situation arose from a complaint; the original structure was oversized, and the addition made it more so.
  • Board members questioned whether the violation was self-inflicted. Mr. King admitted he did not investigate permit requirements.
  • The board determined the hardship was self-inflicted, as the construction was done by the owners without proper permits, and denied the variance unanimously (3-0).

V-36-26: Mateo X Acuna

  • Requested a variance of 5 ft lot width and a waiver for a pad extension to validate a 10 ft by 23 ft driveway extension with gravel at 309 Ferndale Place, Oxon Hill.
  • Mr. Acuna stated the driveway was too narrow for two cars, causing one car to intrude onto the sidewalk. He removed a retaining wall and added gravel to expand the driveway. He received a violation notice in May 2026, applied for a permit the next day, and paid all fines.
  • His father, Frank Acuna, testified in support, noting no neighbor complaints and that the gravel was properly pitched.
  • Inspector Craig Johnson confirmed the violation notice was issued in response to a 511 service request.
  • The board noted the property's sloping and narrow lot, and approved the variance unanimously (3-0).

AA-1777: Robert Rose v. M-NCPPC Zoning Interpretation

  • The appeal challenged the Planning Commission's Zoning Ordinance Interpretation (ZOI) regarding farm-based alcohol production on Lot 3, Queen Anne Meadows subdivision (18020 Queen Anne Bridge Road). Section 27-5102(b)(2)(A)(ii) prohibits such production on lots subject to a governance structure (e.g., an HOA).
  • Appellant Robert Rose argued that the HOA was forfeited by the state in 2004 and no longer exists, so the prohibition does not apply. He highlighted that the plat notes (Note 4 and Note 5) do not, on their own, establish a governance structure, and that the covenants are an individual responsibility of lot owners, not an HOA. He cited case law restricting interpretation to the text.
  • Planning attorney Laura Tallarico countered that the plat note requires an HOA to own the private road, and the easement and maintenance agreement constitutes a governance structure. She argued that allowing forfeiture to enable new uses would undermine the purpose of preventing commercial activity in residential subdivisions.
  • Board members discussed the distinction between forfeiture and dissolution; Vice Chair Johnston noted that the HOA had not been dissolved, only forfeited, and covenants could still be enforced.
  • The board voted to affirm the Planning Commission's interpretation, denying the appeal (3-0).

Key Outcomes

  • V-22-26 approved 3-0 (Wolde/Testu shed variance).
  • V-29-26 approved 3-0 (Winkler/Roach addition variance).
  • V-31-26 denied 3-0 (King shed variance, self-inflicted hardship).
  • V-36-26 approved 3-0 (Acuna driveway variance).
  • AA-1777 affirmed (Rose appeal denied) 3-0, upholding the M-NCPPC zoning interpretation.
  • Minutes from September 9, 2026, approved 3-0.
  • Meeting adjourned at 8:06 PM. Next meeting scheduled for October 7, 2026.

Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone. The Board of Appeals hearings for Wednesday, September 23rd, 2026, or hit by call to order. I'll ask our board administrator to call the roll. Chair Bulware. Present. Vice Chair Johnston. Vice Chair Johnston. She's working. There she is. Uh here. Thank you. Board member stand. Here. Three members present at roll call. Thank you. Are there any announcements? Yes, Mr. Chair. V926. Um, they submitted some information that changed the scope of the variance request, and we need to reschedule. V2126. Um is rescheduled to October 7th per the petitioner's request. Okay. And a minor um change on AA 1777. Uh, we uh inadvertently left a T off of Robert. So we apologize to the appellant for the misspelling. Indeed. Anything else? I don't know if there's anyone here for V926 and V2126 that can um sign off now. All right, great. The Board of Appeals in-person meetings or indoor 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. Such that strict application of the preserv 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, or 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 the 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. The approval of variants is not a guarantee that further review will not be necessary by any other government authorities. Or an integrity following the approval of the variance, a building permit must be obtained. Sector plan 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 that property in compliance with the board's approved site and elevation plans. And with that, we'll move to our first case on our agenda this evening. Yes. This is a request for variances of 9,389 square feet, not lot net lot area, 2.7% lot coverage, five feet front yard depth, one foot side yard width, and a waiver of the parking area location requirement and a one-foot sideline line setback for an accessory building to validate existing conditions, net lot area, front yard depth, side yard width, parking area location, and obtained a building permit for the unauthorized construction of a 13 by 23.85 shed at 2603 Lackawana Street Adelphi.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com