Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies variance for 6607 Greg Street after neighborhood compliance opposition and neighbor flooding complaint
Summary
The council voted 6–1 to deny a zoning variance request related to setbacks at 6607 Greg Street after the Neighborhood Compliance Division opposed the variance and councilmembers raised concerns about a neighbor's flooding and the structure's encroachments into required yards.
The Seat Pleasant City Council voted 6–1 to deny a variance request for a property at 6607 Greg Street after the city’s Neighborhood Compliance Division recommended opposing the request and council members cited neighbor safety and property impacts.
Neighborhood Compliance staff told the council that Prince George’s County zoning requires front yards of at least 25 feet and rear yards of at least 20 feet (citing county table 4) and that the structure as built does not meet the required rear-yard setback. The compliance report cited the City Code provision adopting the county building-code provisions (Chapter 63.6) and opposed the variance because adoptees of the county code require those minimum setbacks.
Council member Love described prior field inspections and said excavation and grading tied to the construction had caused water to enter a neighbor’s house: “When we investigated it, we realized it came from what they did in the backyard,” she said, and urged that the affected neighbor be made “whole” before any approvals. Council members also noted the property remains partially unfinished, with siding not installed and signs of squatting reported.
Staff and council members discussed county authority over variances in cases where municipal review is advisory or where county code applies. City staff said the council must provide a response to the county when a variance is pending; they also noted that if the owner does not correct outstanding issues the city could pursue enforcement steps later under its property‑maintenance and building rules.
At the conclusion of the discussion Councilman Raynor moved, and Council approved, a motion to accept the neighborhood compliance division’s recommendation to oppose the variance; the recorded vote was 6–1 in favor of denying the variance request.
City staff said they would follow up with compliance and the owner about remediation steps and would provide information to the council on any enforcement timeline should the owner fail to remedy the neighbor’s damage or to bring the work into compliance with county and city rules.
