Prince George's County Board of Appeals members unanimously approved three variance requests at their Nov. 5, 2025 hearing, allowing homeowners to validate existing work and pursue building permits.

The board approved V56‑25 for Joseph and Robin Branson at 9401 Miller Court in Clinton, granting a 6.42‑foot rear‑yard variance so the couple may validate and obtain a permit for a 24‑by‑46.5‑foot garage addition. Robin Holly Branson told the board the garage supports her husband’s therapeutic car‑repair work and that planned home expansions are intended to accommodate aging parents. "My husband has a lifelong passion for repairing cars… and now that he's a 100% disabled veteran, his ability to continue this passion has remained therapeutic for him," Branson said. Member Stanton moved to approve; Vice Chair Johnston seconded. The vote was 3–0.

The board next approved V58‑25 for Janice Lane of 6216 Indian Creek Street in Beltsville, granting waivers to validate a leveled and extended driveway and a 6‑foot corner‑lot fence and to satisfy parking‑location requirements. Lane said a large tree whose roots buckled the driveway created safety risks for her brother, whom she cares for, and that the driveway work predated her ownership. Several HOA members and an adjacent neighbor testified in support. Inspector Swan of Prince George's County DPIE said a stop‑work order was issued after work ceased and that no correction order or citation remained on file; the board found the lot’s corner configuration and topography supported the variance and approved the request 3–0.

The board also approved V60‑25 for Madeline Yetzer of 5800 Juniper Tree Lane in Capitol Heights, granting variances for lot width and front‑ and side‑yard depths to permit an 8‑by‑20 sunroom replacing an existing deck. Yetzer, who identified herself as a 100% disabled veteran, said additional indoor space is needed to reduce travel within the house and avoid heat‑sensitivity triggers. Board members noted the narrow lot and close proximity to the neighbor but concluded the statutory criteria for a variance were met; the motion passed 3–0.

Between cases the board recessed briefly to resolve technical difficulties. The board staff said that after approval of each variance petitioners must present the board’s written order when applying for building permits and that other agency reviews may still be required. One case (VE59‑25, Thorpe) was rescheduled because the homeowners were out of the country and their contractor could not legally represent them in their absence. The board also approved minutes from Oct. 22, 2025.

The board's staff will follow up with applicants on next steps for final orders and permitting.