Prince George’s County Board of Appeals denies one driveway variance, approves five other variances

The Prince George’s County Board of Appeals on March 26 denied a request to validate an already‑constructed driveway apron in Laurel but approved five other variance requests involving garages, driveways, fences and an existing commercial building footprint.

Board members denied Joanna Estevez’s request to validate a completed driveway extension at 13206 Claxton Drive, Laurel, finding the work was “self‑inflicted” because it was done without required permits. Vice Chair Johnston moved to deny the variance for not meeting the board’s six statutory criteria; Member Stanton seconded the motion and the board voted 3‑0 to deny the request.

The board approved a 30‑by‑30 storage garage and driveway extension variance for Lewis and Barbara Tucker at 1811 Billings Avenue, Capitol Heights; approved driveway, shed and yard variances for Dennis and Ratna (Veronica) DeRosario at 600‑330 Seventh Avenue, Hyattsville; approved a fence height and related variances for Nora Castro at 4712 Montgomery Place, Beltsville; approved a rear setback variance to validate existing conditions for Rahimi Investments at 7755 Landover Road; and approved a variance to replace an existing deck at 6006 Queens Chapel Road, Hyattsville, after the city of Hyattsville provided a support letter. Each approval carried on a 3‑0 roll call.

Why it matters: Board variance decisions determine whether property owners may deviate from zoning rules such as setback, lot coverage or parking requirements. Denials based on work completed without permits send a reminder that owning or hiring contractors to perform work before securing permits can bar relief from zoning rules.

What the board said and why

Joanna Estevez, 13206 Claxton Drive, Laurel — denied

The board heard that Estevez’s driveway originally measured about 10 by 20 feet and that an unpermitted extension increased the paved apron. Estevez said she and a contractor believed a permit was not required for the work and that the extension was intended to add parking for the five‑bedroom house. Inspector Harrison (Department of Permitting, Inspections, and Enforcement) told the board that the property requires a permit and that the county had issued a citation. Chairman Boulware (listed in the transcript variously as Bower/Boulware/Buller) and other members concluded the violation was self‑inflicted and therefore did not meet the ordinance’s standard for a variance. Vice Chair Johnston moved to deny “due to not meeting the six indicators for a variance”; Member Stanton seconded. The motion carried 3‑0. The board advised staff would follow up with the petitioner about next steps and any appeal rights.

Tuckers, 1811 Billings Avenue, Capitol Heights — approved

Lewis and Barbara Tucker sought a variance of 4.5% lot coverage to construct a 30‑by‑30 storage garage and extend a driveway. The board found the lot’s shape and topography provide unique circumstances and voted 3‑0 to approve the variance; Vice Chair Johnston moved for approval and Member Stanton seconded.

Dennis and Ratna (Veronica) DeRosario, 600‑330 Seventh Avenue, Hyattsville — approved

The DeRosarios requested variances for lot width at the building line, reduced front yard depth, and a parking‑location waiver to validate existing conditions and permit a 7‑by‑15 driveway extension and a shed. The applicants said the property houses a five‑bedroom household and that additional off‑street parking would enhance security. Board members noted some topographic issues and approved the request 3‑0.

Nora Castro, 4712 Montgomery Place, Beltsville — approved

Castro said she operates a childcare and requested a security exemption review and a variance that would allow a fence about 2 feet taller than ordinarily permitted in the front yard along Montgomery Place to provide privacy and safety for children. Board members noted slope and topography on the parcel and that the work was not self‑inflicted; the board approved the request 3‑0.

Rahimi Investments, 7755 Landover Road — approved

Counsel and a senior land‑planner representing Rahimi Investments asked the board to validate a building setback that complied with the law when the structure was built circa 1969 but now falls short of the current required 40‑foot rear setback. Attorneys submitted historical aerials and a written justification. The board found the property shape, topography (including an on‑site retaining wall) and changed zoning context met the variance criteria and approved the validation 3‑0.

6006 Queens Chapel Road, Hyattsville (case v93‑24) — approved

The board voted 3‑0 to approve a variance to replace an existing 16‑by‑14 deck after the board received a letter of support from the City of Hyattsville.

Votes at a glance

- V56‑24 (13206 Claxton Drive, Joanna Estevez): Motion to deny variance (mover: Vice Chair Johnston; second: Member Stanton). Vote: Chair Boulware Aye; Vice Chair Johnston Aye; Member Stanton Aye. Outcome: denied. Note: inspector cited property for unpermitted work; board found the issue self‑inflicted. - V2‑25 (1811 Billings Ave, Lewis & Barbara Tucker): Motion to approve variance for 30×30 garage and driveway extension (mover: Vice Chair Johnston; second: Member Stanton). Vote: 3‑0 approve. - V3‑25 (600‑330 7th Ave, Dennis & Ratna Rosario): Motion to approve variances for lot width, front yard depth and parking location (mover: Vice Chair Johnston; second: Member Stanton). Vote: 3‑0 approve. - V4‑25 (4712 Montgomery Place, Nora Castro): Motion to approve fence height/security exemption and parking location waiver (mover: Member Stanton; seconded and passed on roll call). Vote: 3‑0 approve. - V7‑25 (7755 Landover Road, Rahimi Investments): Motion to approve rear setback validation (mover: Member Stanton; second: Vice Chair Johnston). Vote: 3‑0 approve. - V93‑24 (6006 Queens Chapel Road): Motion to approve variance to replace existing deck (mover: Vice Chair Johnston; second: Member Stanton). Vote: 3‑0 approve.

What the board did not do

The board did not grant any variances contingent on new conditions beyond standard site and elevation plan compliance; where work had already been completed without permits, the board indicated that approval is not appropriate under the law unless the required criteria are met.

Next steps

For denied requests, staff will send the board’s written order and advise petitioners about appeal rights and required remediation steps. For approved variances, staff will follow up on building‑permit requirements and any site‑plan conditions required by the board.

Ending

The Board of Appeals also approved its March 12, 2025 minutes and adjourned at 6:52 p.m. Staff said virtual and in‑person participation options remain available for future hearings.