Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Baltimore County appeals board grants limited setback relief, denies variance tied to later fourth unit at 407 Vaux Lane
Summary
The Baltimore County Board of Appeals on May 21, 2026 granted a variance limited to an original garage setback but denied relief for a later addition that created a fourth apartment at 407 Vaux Lane (appeal 25174A); the board treated a frontage question as moot for the written opinion and urged parties to consider tenant relocation timing.
The Baltimore County Board of Appeals issued a written opinion for appeal 25174A after deliberating May 21, 2026 on variances sought for the property at 407 Vaux Lane owned by Judy Giordioso. Chair Mike Stalmack and board members Deborah Dopkin and Sharon Benardi agreed to grant setback relief tied to the former garage footprint but refused to authorize relief for a later addition that produced a fourth apartment.
The case centered on requested variances from BCZR 402.1 to permit side-yard setbacks of 8 feet and 9 feet instead of the 20-foot minimum and a combined side-yard total of 17 feet instead of 40 feet, with an alternate front-lot-width issue under BCZR 421 if needed. "It is the variance needed for that fourth apartment that I cannot find justification for," board member Deborah Dopkin said, citing the Cromwell v. Ward two-step test that requires a property's uniqueness and a disproportionate zoning burden that prevents a permitted use.
Dopkin and Benardi told colleagues they saw evidence that three of the apartments exist within the footprint of the original residence and garage and may predate zoning changes, while the fourth unit appears to be a later addition without documentary support in the record. Dopkin noted the transcript and zoning maps in the record did not establish when the later expansion occurred and observed there was no clear permit history presented to validate the addition.
On the frontage question for the waterfront lot, Dopkin said the waterfront dimension should be treated as the front and that the board did not view the frontage issue as blocking relief. The members agreed to record their view about the front yard in the opinion but to treat the additional front-width request as either granted or deemed moot for the written decision.
Board members also discussed tenant impacts. "We would want ... the current tenants be given the parties work out some ... adequate time to relocate," Stalmack said, while acknowledging the board lacks equitable authority to impose relocation protections. The board urged the parties and county enforcement authorities to consider lease timing and to avoid immediate displacement where possible.
The board did not hold a formal roll-call vote on the record during deliberations; members signaled a consensus to: grant setback relief for the historic garage location; deny variance relief for the addition that created the fourth apartment; and note in the opinion the board's view on the waterfront frontage while treating the alternate frontage request as moot or resolved. The panel said it would issue an opinion promptly to memorialize these conclusions.
The decision affects the property owner (listed in the record as Judy Giordioso), neighbors who protested the variances, and the tenants currently occupying units at 407 Vaux Lane. The board referenced Cromwell v. Ward and specific provisions of the Baltimore County Zoning Regulations (BCZR 402.1 and BCZR 421) in applying the legal standard. The written opinion will state the board's findings and note consideration of tenant impacts; the transcript shows the parties and county authorities will handle any practical relocation or enforcement actions going forward.
