Baltimore City — The Board of Municipal and Zoning Appeals on April 1 granted a six-month extension for an applicant seeking to pull a final inspection/UNO on a May 2023 variance and approved several conditional uses and minor variance requests for neighborhood businesses and industrial operations.

Board Executive Director Becky Witt told members the extension request was dated March 25 and that the original resolution was issued May 16, 2023. "We've been getting a lot of extension requests lately that are possibly not timely and so they're gonna require a little bit of extra thought," Witt said. She recommended the board examine whether substantial construction activity had occurred; staff records showed permits and final-inspection activity related to the project.

Why this matters: the board’s decisions determine whether long‑running projects with lapsed zoning approvals can be completed without reapplying, and they also clear or block small businesses and industrial services that affect foot traffic, parking and neighborhood character.

Votes at a glance (cases called on April 1):
- Extension request (variance approved May 2023): The board approved a six‑month extension to allow the owner to obtain final sign‑offs; the measure passed unanimously among members present (four in favor; one member arrived late and did not vote). No mover/second was recorded in the public hearing record.
- BMZA 2020‑5‑1834 Edmondson Ave (carryout food shop/conditional use): Approved. Planning noted a long history of carryout use at the address; the applicant said the carryout would operate evenings (roughly 5 p.m.–midnight) and have security cameras and lighting. Board members voted in favor on the record.
- BMZA 2020‑5‑5901 Oakleaf Ave (Legacy Auto Diagnostics: motor vehicle service & repair—conditional use): Approved. Planning recommended approval based on the property's industrial zoning and separation from residences; board members voted in favor.
- BMZA 2024‑1611 West Lombard Ave (variance, rear‑yard for first/second‑floor rear addition): Approved as a minor variance under §5302(b)/(d) after staff and applicant demonstrated the house's age and the limited square‑foot impact; board members voted to approve the variance.
- BMZA 2024‑222/1448 N Mount St (mixed-use proposal — first floor laundromat + two/three upper units): The board granted conditional‑use approval for a neighborhood commercial personal‑services use (laundromat) and approved an off‑street parking outcome but declined/recorded no action on larger minimum‑lot‑area and full rear‑yard variances as presented; planning had recommended a reduced proposal (two dwelling units) rather than four. The board noted major variances remained and did not approve the minimum lot area and rear‑yard variances in their present form.
- BMZA 2024‑278/1000 Edmondson Ave (convert commercial first floor to an additional dwelling for a total of three units): The board approved the minimum‑lot‑area variance to allow the additional unit and required the applicant to provide the one required off‑street parking space (denied the separate parking variance because staff found space exists).
- A PL25000230610 Rowland Ave (small deli/retail + residential above): The board approved the conditional‑use request to operate a neighborhood deli/retail goods establishment and confirmed eligibility for multifamily density on the property after an extended staff and public discussion about the building's long mixed‑use history.

Other notable outcomes and process notes: several applications were postponed for updated floor plans or additional documentation (for example, two Park Heights cases were postponed because the submitted floor plan showed a residential layout inconsistent with the applicant’s stated office use). One significant request for a rear addition to a church property on Edmonson Ave was held open pending a forthcoming change in city code that may affect nonconforming‑structure rules.

What board members said: Planning staff and the executive director repeatedly asked applicants to submit floor plans and clear documentation that the proposed use matches what will be operated. "We want the records to reflect what we saw is what in fact you intend to operate," Witt said when recommending a postponement for one applicant whose submitted plans showed residential rooms while testimony described office uses.

What’s next: The board will circulate written resolutions for approved items in the coming weeks; those written decisions are required before an action is final. Applicants denied or partially denied were advised about appeal options and about resubmitting revised plans.