Prince George's County Board of Appeals denies driveway and accessory-structure variances, reschedules second case

The Prince George's County Board of Appeals on March 12, 2025 denied a request to legalize several unpermitted improvements at 5109 Duer (Dual) Place in Capitol Heights after finding the homeowners began work before obtaining required permits and could not show the legal standard for a variance.

Board Chair Boulware said the panel could not determine the six criteria required under county zoning law because construction started prior to permit approval, and the board voted 3-0 to deny the variance request. The petitioners had sought validation for an extended driveway, a 6-foot fence, a shed and related site work and requested permits to complete the driveway and retaining wall.

Why it matters: A denial from the Board of Appeals means the existing unpermitted work remains out of compliance; the county's permitting and enforcement process, and any corrective orders already issued, remain in effect. Petitioners retain administrative and court appeal rights described at the hearing.

What the board heard and found

Petitioners Rosa Tixi Crespo and her husband, Romulo Dixie, told the board they wished to extend the driveway and complete a retaining wall because they were concerned about street conditions and past break-ins. The petitioners said some work had been done by people they hired or who had knowledge of construction and that they are first-time homeowners.

County inspectors testified that a corrective order had been issued in December 2023 for an unpermitted driveway, an oversized accessory structure (shed) and a fence taller than the four-foot limit. Inspector Kenneth Harrison was identified in the record as the inspector who issued the violation; Inspector Swann testified about the enforcement history at the hearing.

Vice Chair Johnston and other board members noted topographic constraints and narrow lot features but focused on the requirement that all six variance criteria be met and on the ordinance provision that a hardship cannot be self-inflicted. Because the petitioners had begun construction before obtaining permits, the board said it was “very limited in what it can consider.”

Board action and votes

Member Stanton moved to deny the variance request; Vice Chair Johnston seconded. The board administrator called the roll; Chair Boulware, Vice Chair Johnston and Member Stanton voted aye. The motion to deny passed 3-0.

Votes at a glance: • Deny variance for 5109 Duer (Dual) Place (case V-51-24 / recorded as V-05/2024 in the roll call): motion to deny moved by Member Stanton, seconded by Vice Chair Johnston; vote 3-0 — outcome: denied. Note: transcript shows the case referenced as V-51-24 at intake and the roll call recorded a V-05/2024 designation; the board cited denial on the record and staff will follow up on appeal rights. • Approve minutes of Feb. 26, 2025 hearing: moved by Vice Chair Johnston, seconded by Member Stanton; vote 3-0 — outcome: approved. • Take a short recess (five minutes): moved by Vice Chair Johnston, seconded by Member Stanton; vote 3-0 — outcome: carried. • Reconvene meeting: moved by Vice Chair Johnston, seconded by Member Stanton; vote 3-0 — outcome: carried. • Adjourn meeting: moved by Vice Chair Johnston, seconded by Member Stanton; vote 3-0 — outcome: carried.

Other business: rescheduled Moore sunroom case

The board opened a second case, listed as V-904-424 (Thomas and Deneen Moore, request to validate reduced lot frontage and to permit an 8-by-19 sunroom at 6102 Summer Suite Drive, Clinton). The contractor's representative, Sheila Hippolyte of Medallion, appeared but the homeowners were not visible on camera. The Board's rules require owners listed on the deed to be present and visible for testimony. The board staff said it would reschedule the Moore case for a later meeting and follow up with the homeowners on a new date; staff made clear the homeowners must be able to be seen and heard on camera.

What was not decided

The board did not authorize any retroactive permits or approvals for the Capitol Heights property; it denied the variance request. The board did not set a new hearing date for the Moore case at the meeting; staff will provide a reschedule date. No other formal approvals or permit waivers were granted.

Meeting context and next steps

Three members were present for the March 12 hearing: Chair Boulware, Vice Chair Johnston and Member Stanton. Staff and county inspectors participated by video and sworn testimony. The board administrator indicated staff will send the written order and next steps to the Capitol Heights petitioners, and staff referenced existing appeal rights to the circuit court.

The board's denial rests on the county's variance standard in council legislation and the zoning ordinance, which requires all six criteria to be satisfied and disallows granting a variance when the practical difficulty is self-inflicted. Petitioners retain administrative and judicial appeal options noted by staff at the hearing.