Good evening.

My name is Alan Frankel, and I am the chair of the City of Rockville Board of Appeals, and I welcome you to Board of Appeals meeting.

We are both live here in the Mayor and Council's chambers, and we are also online as well as being broadcast on Channel 11.

This is meeting 3-2025.

And with me today are my other Board of Appeals members, Roy Deutschman, Jimmy Hauer.

Also in the chambers with me today are Jim Waslick, the Chief of Zoning, Nicholas Dumay, our senior assistant city attorney, and Chris Davis, our planner.

If you intend to participate through WebEx online, there are rules that have been promulgated for appearing online, and it is presumed that you are aware of those rules.

Mr.

Davis, are you ready?

Yes, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Mr.

Waslick, would you please swear in uh Mr.

Davis?

Yes, I will.

If you could identify yourself for the record.

Uh Christopher Davis Community Planning and Development Services.

And will you provide truthful testimony this evening?

I will.

Thank you.

You may proceed.

Thank you.

Can I bring up the presentation here?

Okay, here we go.

So thank you, Mr.

Chair and members of the board.

As Mr.

Wassleck indicated, this is a variance application for the property at 721 Mapleton Road.

As you can see from the aerials shown on the screen, the subject property is 721 Mapleton Road.

It's located at the terminus of Mapleton Road and its intersection with Joseph Street.

This site is located in the East Rockville planning area.

It has a land use designation of single family residential detached, and it's located in the R60 zone, which corresponds with the city's uh mostly single family uh zoning district.

The specific request by the applicant this evening is a zoning variance from the side yard setback requirements for the purposes of enclosing an existing uh screen to porch uh to the western side of the bill uh of the existing dwelling.

Um you can see the proposed site plan here on the screen.

The area outlined in red is the area that uh occupies the current uh uh screen porch that the applicant will basically like to enclose.

Um the overall footprint will remain the same, uh, but it'll just be completed with finished material for interior living space.

Um as you can see, also on the site plan, the site is encumbered by a 10-foot-wide reservation for water and sewer.

Um, and as we go through the findings, um, that impacts the uh uh possible improvements that can be made on the property.

Um so staff's overall recommendation for the variants is approval with conditions.

Here you can see an image, uh a street view image of the property from Mapleton Raid.

Um as you can see, it's improved with the two-story dwelling.

Um the area uh sorry, area outlined uh just to the uh right of the screen is the screen porch, um, which will basically uh remain in footprint, but again be in closed.

Um there are additional improvements proposed to the property, but not subject to the variants, including uh an addition to the rear of the property for further living area.

But those uh proposed improvements are will be done in compliance with the code.

So here you can see uh a few images uh to the screen left.

You can see the detailed floor plan.

Um to the left of the screen, uh the uh enclosed porch will be improved with a front entry mudroom to allow for transition from the front driveway to uh the front of the dwelling, as well as an additional uh bedroom area uh to the south of that enclosed uh space.

Um the images to the right uh depict the proposed elevations.

Um the image to the on the top right is the front elevation, and the image to the lower right is the side elevation.

As you can see, the materials will mimic the current um aesthetics of the building with a combination of brick and vinyl uh siding uh to be consistent with the rest of the dwelling.

So moving on to the specific zoning uh issues and requests.

Uh so again, the minimum required side yard um in the R6D zone is eight feet.

The applicant is requesting a uh side yard setback of five feet, which would equate to a variance of three feet to enclose that screen porch area.

In staff's review of this application, uh, it has been found that the request does satisfy the requirements for granting a variance.

Um, number one being that it would not be contrary to the public interest.

Um, through staff review, uh it's found that uh the maintaining the existing footprint and similar messing will not have any uh adverse impacts to the neighboring properties.

Um furthermore, in uh uh posting of review of this application, staff did not receive any letters of opposition, and the uh adjacent property owner did provide a written testimony of support for this application.

Uh finding two, staff did find that the requested variance is due to conditions peculiar to the property and not the result of actions by the property owner.

Um specifically the presence of that 10-foot wide uh reservation area limits the areas on the property where improvements could be made.