Gaithersburg Board of Appeals approves 7-foot rear-setback variance for 11710 Fernshire Road, 5-0

The City of Gaithersburg Board of Appeals voted 5-0 Aug. 13 to approve variance BOA10140-2025, allowing a 7-foot reduction to the 20-foot rear-yard setback for an addition at 11710 Fernshire Road in the R-90 zone.

The variance permits approximately 55.9 square feet of a proposed 600–650 square-foot en‑suite addition to intrude into the rear yard. The addition is intended to house aging parents as part of a multigenerational arrangement and would back onto a Pepco transmission right-of-way, rather than another private backyard.

At the hearing, Carolyn Seiden, planning and code administration staff for the City of Gaithersburg, opened the public record and confirmed the case details, the notice and posting of the property and that 11 exhibits were in the file. Jody Klein, an attorney with Miller and Camby, represented the applicants. Keith Vaughn, owner of Spectrum Design Build, described the design and site constraints and said the addition "is not gonna be an ADU. It's just gonna have, like, a kitchenette with a fridge and a sink and things like that." Vaughn and counsel said the owners bought the lot as platted and that the lot’s irregular shape and a 7–8 foot grade change across the parcel limit buildable options elsewhere on the lot.

Board members focused discussion on the variance criteria under the city code. Members noted the lot’s diagonal rear property line and topography as factors limiting where a rectangular, single‑level addition feasible for the homeowners could be placed. One board member said the surrounding map showed several lots with atypical shapes but that the subject parcel’s diagonal cutoff at the rear made it distinctive for this block. The board also discussed a prior variance approved for the lot in 1984; staff said that decision is part of the record but not dispositive under the current code.

Several technical details were discussed on the record: the rear encroachment would total about 55.9 square feet of the roughly 630-square-foot addition; the lot grades down about 7–8 feet from one side to the other, prompting the applicants to prefer a slab-on-grade solution at the rear; the proposed roof ridge for the new gable was estimated at roughly 11–12 feet above grade; and the addition exceeds 400 square feet of new roof, so a drainage plan (dry well, rain barrels or equivalent) will be required to meet code.

Neighbors did not register opposition at the hearing, and the applicants said the immediate adjacent neighbor had been contacted and did not oppose the application. Board members expressed particular attention to the fact that the portion of the addition that would encroach faces a utility right-of-way rather than a private backyard, and several members said that reduced the project’s visual impact on adjoining properties.

After deliberation, a board member moved to approve the draft resolution adopting variance BOA10140-2025 with the single condition presented in the staff draft; the motion was seconded and carried 5-0.

The board closed the public record for the case during the meeting and confirmed that the condition in the adopted resolution must be satisfied as written. The case file includes the applicant’s drawings, the staff report and the prior 1984 decision referenced during the hearing.

The board also approved the July 9, 2025 minutes (one member noted an abstention due to absence from that meeting). The Board of Appeals’ next scheduled meeting is Sept. 10, 2025 (to be confirmed based on applications).

Ending: The approved variance allows the applicants to proceed to permitting and final design with the condition included in the resolution; any required building permits, drainage plans and utility clearances remain subject to standard review and approvals by city staff and relevant utilities.