Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BMZA denies after‑the‑fact variances for enclosed patio at 50 East Montgomery Street
Summary
The BMZA denied requests for multiple variances for a large, unpermitted glass‑and‑steel enclosed patio in Federal Hill after planning and neighbors documented lack of permits, apparent continued use during a stop‑work order, safety concerns and impacts on adjacent properties.
The Baltimore Board of Municipal and Zoning Appeals denied multiple variance requests for an after‑the‑fact enclosed patio at 50 East Montgomery Street, concluding the application failed to meet the legal standards for practical difficulty and would be injurious to adjacent property owners.
Planning staff recommended disapproval, noting the structure is a large, permanent enclosed addition within the Federal Hill/CHAP district built without prior authorization. Attorney Chase Hoffberger, representing owner Yakov Kaplan, said the owner sought variances because the lot is unusually wide, the property abuts C‑1 zoning on the rear lot line, and preexisting conditions (a brick wall and narrow alley) created practical difficulties. Hoffberger acknowledged the structure was already built and said the owner would pursue permits and inspections if the board granted relief.
Neighbors and the Federal Hill Neighborhood Association presented photographs and sworn testimony documenting construction without permits, an issued stop‑work order, continuing use for gatherings and concerns about safety, noise, nighttime lighting and impacts on privacy and property values. Greg Russell, an immediate neighbor, said vertical construction began Nov. 21, 2024, and that gatherings with bright interior lighting and propane heaters occurred inside the space while permits and inspections had not been completed.
Board members said they were unable to find exceptional circumstances tied to the variance requests and expressed concern about precedent created by approving an unpermitted structure. After deliberation, the board announced it would deny all five variance requests (lot coverage, impervious surface, rear‑yard setback, and interior side‑yard setbacks). The board directed that standard enforcement remedies remained available to staff.
