Hearing examiner hears testimony on variance that would let 8215 Springfield Road qualify for planned retirement community

Prince George's County Hearing Examiner Maureen McMillan continued a May 7 hearing on a request by ESC Springfield Road LLC for a variance to the prior county zoning ordinance so a planned retirement community could be approved at 8215 Springfield Road. The applicant told the examiner the parcel’s recorded gross area is 12.0091 acres, and that if the portion of the site occupied by Springfield Road were excluded the remaining area would be about 11.9278 acres.

The dispute centers on whether land under Springfield Road is properly counted toward the ordinance’s “at least 12 contiguous acres” requirement for a planned retirement community under the prior ordinance. Mark Ferguson, senior land planner with Site Design Inc., testified for the applicant that the difference “between 12 acres and 11.9278 acres is de minimis,” and he argued the board may grant a variance in conjunction with a special-exception approval.

Opponents, including nearby property owners Howard and Tanya Aldag and counsel for Wingate Homeowners Association, argued the applicant and owner knew the parcel fell short of 12 contiguous acres and that any claimed hardship is self-inflicted. Howard Aldag told the examiner: “This variance should not be approved. There is no hardship regarding the property,” and he described traffic and neighborhood‑character concerns if the proposed development proceeds.

Legal and factual questions aired at length. Applicant counsel Chris Hatcher said the applicant was presenting the variance “in the alternative” and introduced an April 29 supplemental statement of justification that lists the 12.0091 figure and the 11.9278 figure when the Springfield Road area is excluded. Ferguson said he reviewed deeds and plats for the defined neighborhood and prepared an exhibit mapping roughly 1,138 parcels; he testified that five other parcels (in addition to the subject) show deed language that could reach the centerline of an abutting road, but that none matched the subject as closely in size.

Opposing counsel and several participants repeatedly challenged aspects of the testimony. Counsel questioned whether Ferguson, as a land planner rather than a licensed surveyor, could testify to a precise acreage; People Zoning Counsel Stan Brown and the examiner allowed Ferguson to testify but asked the applicant to supply signed exhibits and supporting documents. Michelle Rosenfeld, counsel for the Aldags, argued as a matter of law that the district council’s authority to grant a variance in conjunction with a special exception is limited by section 27-3-16 of the prior zoning ordinance and emphasized that the applicant’s request is for a deviation in property area rather than a variance to a structure or use. Rosenfeld quoted the supplemental filing: “variances granted under the authority of this section are applicable only to the structure or use the variance was granted in conjunction with.”

On factual points: the applicant’s supplemental materials state that the Springfield Road area at issue measures 3,542 square feet (about 0.0813 acres); removing that area produces the lower acreage figure the applicant’s witnesses cited. Ferguson testified the five WSSC easements and other utility easements were considered in his analysis but said he did not subtract them from the gross acreage when computing the 12.0091 figure. Opponents said certified copies of five easements reduce the usable land to about 11.13 acres; the opposing counsel said those deeds would be submitted into the record.

Public‑interest and neighborhood impacts were also raised in testimony. Howard Aldag and others said Springfield Road already experiences heavy commuter and cut‑through traffic and expressed safety and queuing concerns about adding a development that the opponents say would include 57 attached units with a single entrance. Applicant witnesses and counsel pointed to earlier expert testimony in the broader remanded record (including a civil surveyor and transportation expert) and argued that the proposed planned retirement community would meet master‑plan goals and would not substantially impair adjacent properties.

Procedural matters: the examiner directed counsel to sign and submit the April 29 supplemental statement (exhibit 21 as marked in the hearing) and asked the applicant to provide certified copies or links to the deeds and the five specific easements that were discussed during cross‑examination. The examiner set a short deadline for those submissions and said the record would close after they are filed; she also reminded the parties that any decision may be appealed to the district council.

The record on the remanded special‑exception and alternative compliance matters remains extensive. The variance hearing focused narrowly on whether the subject parcel meets the prior ordinance’s 12‑acre contiguous requirement, whether the presence or exclusion of roadway/prescriptive easement area is a unique physical circumstance under Cromwell v. Ward and related case law, and whether any hardship is demonstrated that would justify a variance as the minimum necessary.