Prince George's County Board of Appeals continues variance case for 6607 Bridal Street after county inspector raises permit questions

Prince George's County Board of Appeals members on a June 2025 hearing voted to continue a variance request for the property at 6607 Bridal Street in Capitol Heights after county code inspection staff said the structure is the subject of an outstanding violation and may represent a new building rather than a repair.

The petition, filed as V-24-25 by R and R Rivera Investment LLC, seeks variances from front- and rear-setback rules to validate existing encroachments — including a concrete block foundation and a small covered porch — so the owner may obtain a building permit to reconstruct and renovate the house. The board voted to hold the case open for “technical assistance and additional testimony,” a motion the roll call recorded as passing 3-0 (Chair Boulware: aye; Vice Chair Johnston: aye; Board Member Stanton: aye).

The petitioner’s attorney, Casey Serna, told the board the concrete block foundation dates to the 1950s and “the original home was constructed in the 19 fifties. And it was destroyed by a fire around 2013 to 2014 time frame.” Serna said structural engineers verified the foundation could be reused and that the variances sought were the minimum necessary to retain the existing footprint and a small covered entry.

Prince George’s County Inspector Swan contradicted parts of that narrative. Swan testified that, in his view, “the majority rough estimation, 85% of the foundation was rebuilt,” and said the property is currently under a violation and subject to a stop‑work order. Swan told the board his involvement dates to 2020 and that a subsequent permit application for a new single‑family dwelling was filed in 2022 by a prior owner identified in county records as NBA Real Estate LLC.

Board members said the new information from county inspection staff raised factual questions the board could not resolve during the hearing. Chair Boulware said the board had reviewed the petitioner’s exhibits but that the inspector’s statements meant “these issues… need to be worked out before the board considers what action to take regarding this request for a variance.” Board staff and the petitioner were asked to coordinate follow-up and technical assistance; the board left the record open and will reschedule the case.

The variance request, as presented by Serna, included: a 12-foot variance from the front setback to validate a 1.8‑foot foundation encroachment and an approximately 11.6‑foot projection for stairs/porch, and a roughly 3.6‑foot rear‑yard foundation encroachment. Serna said the petitioner acquired the property in 2024 and that the encroachments predate that ownership.

The board emphasized that state law and the county zoning ordinance prohibit granting a variance when the practical difficulty is self-inflicted by the owner; because county staff identified a prior violation and stop‑work order, the board said additional evidence and technical review were necessary before it could determine whether all statutory criteria for a variance are met.

Board staff will follow up with the petitioner and county inspection staff to arrange technical assistance and to obtain any documentation needed to resolve the outstanding questions. No final disposition on the variance was made at the hearing.

Votes at a glance: Motion to continue V-24-25 for technical assistance and additional testimony — carried 3-0 (Chair Boulware: aye; Vice Chair Johnston: aye; Board Member Stanton: aye).