BMZA approves rear‑addition variance at 306 West Lorraine after owners cite subsurface 'Ghost River' damage

The Baltimore City Board of Municipal Zoning Appeals approved variances enabling a two‑story rear addition with a third floor at 306 West Lorraine Avenue after the applicant presented engineering and neighborhood testimony that the property is structurally compromised by a historic underground stream, known in testimony as the Sunwalt Run or a local “Ghost Rivers” feature.

The board found that strict application of the zoning code would create a practical difficulty for the owner and that the requested relief would not injure neighboring properties; the motion to grant the variances passed with four yes votes.

Applicant testimony and supporting documents described visible cracking, subsidence and structural damage. Nate Priddle, representing the applicant, told the board the property “is experiencing significant structural deterioration” and submitted a civil engineer’s letter and photographs showing foundation and wall cracking. Owner Michael Francis Colligan testified about observed movement, saying the house’s elevations differ by as much as “a foot,” and described interior cracking that has worsened since he bought the property. Colligan said the engineer advised either an extensive geotechnical study with deep borings or enlarging the foundation footprint; the latter was presented as the feasible remedy because deep borings and underpinning could be prohibitively expensive and might render neighboring houses difficult to finance.

Planning staff submitted a memo of no objection. The board discussed required findings for variances, focusing on peculiarity of the parcel and practical difficulty in developing it without relief. The applicant argued the site sits on slope/fill associated with the Sunwalt Run and an escarpment that produces uneven subsurface conditions on this lot, and offered an engineer’s explanation that expanding the foundation footprint would distribute loads more safely than concentrated underpinning. The application record included multiple letters of neighborhood support; counsel said there are 11 letters of support from neighbors, including adjacent property owners.

Board members repeatedly emphasized the engineering evidence and neighborhood support in their votes. One board member summarized the reasons on the record: the property’s subsurface conditions tied to the historic stream cause structural problems that make strict compliance with the rear‑yard and lot‑coverage standards an impractical hardship; granting the variance would allow the owner to stabilize and improve the house, consistent with city policy goals for retaining families in Baltimore.

The variances approved included relief from the minimum rear‑yard setback and from maximum lot coverage as presented in the application materials. Planning had identified a discrepancy in the proposed rear setback: the applicant’s team described a 5‑foot proposed setback, while staff noted the existing first‑floor rear deck extends to the lot line and the staff report listed 0 feet. The application record also listed maximum lot coverage of about 98 percent versus an 80 percent limit (an 18 percentage‑point variance as presented in testimony).

The board instructed staff to draft a resolution reflecting the decision; the resolution will be issued in a few weeks and is the board’s final written action. The owners and their representative were advised not to commence the addition until they receive that resolution and any subsequent permits. No additional formal directions to staff were recorded at the hearing, and no appeal outcome beyond the BMZA action was reported at the hearing.

Clarifying details recorded in the hearing record include: required rear yard 20 feet (zoning standard cited by staff), proposed rear‑yard condition noted as either 5 feet (applicant) or 0 feet (staff, due to an existing deck), maximum lot coverage allowed 80 percent and proposed coverage about 98 percent per the applicant’s filings, and engineering recommendations that underpinning could require depths on the order of 30 feet or more in some scenarios (engineer’s letter in the record). The applicant submitted an engineer’s report, photographs, and a neighborhood support packet for the board’s review.

The board’s vote was recorded as four yes votes and no recorded no/abstain votes. The applicant was reminded that the board’s grant becomes effective only after staff drafts and issues the formal resolution and that building permits and any required geotechnical or civil work remain subject to separate permitting and inspections.