Planning commission recommends variances for two Ferry Crossing decks

The Poolesville Planning and Zoning Commission on March 11 recommended that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve two variances allowing small decks to encroach into village‑overlay setbacks in the Ferry Crossing subdivision.

The commission voted 4–0 to forward recommendations for variance 001‑26 (11910 Tatty Way) and variance 002‑26 (17100 Evans Way) after hearing presentations from town staff and Tim Hartman, a representative of Mid‑Atlantic Builders. Under the recommendations, approvals should be limited to single‑story decks and the applicant must provide clearer documentation on the physical hardship tied to lot configuration.

“Good evening. My name is Tim Hartman and I am with Mid‑Atlantic Builders,” Hartman told the commission, describing customer demand for modest decks and saying the company had sold five lots since opening the development. Hartman said the builder could limit any approved work to a single floor and would coordinate posting of required BZA notice signs.

Town planner Miles explained the regulatory context and the specific encroachment requests. For 001‑26 (Tatty Way) the applicant asked to allow a deck to intrude roughly 1 foot into a 5‑foot side setback and about 3 feet 8 inches into a 20‑foot primary‑structure setback; for 002‑26 (Evans Way) the request was for about 6 feet 8 inches into a 20‑foot rear setback, as shown on the submitted site sketches. Miles reiterated the four statutory criteria for granting a variance — impact on public health and neighboring rights; arising from special physical conditions of the lot; elimination of an unnecessary hardship; and consistency with the zoning ordinance’s intent.

One commissioner questioned whether the applications met the hardship requirement, noting hardship must arise from a physical condition rather than personal preference. Staff replied that lot configuration in Ferry Crossing — small, higher‑density lots and differing garage vs. primary‑structure setback baselines — can constitute a physical hardship and suggested documenting that analysis for the BZA. Staff also advised petitioners that the BZA hearing was tentatively scheduled for the end of April and that applicants must post and document notice signs at the properties.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to recommend approval of variance 001‑26 with conditions including a one‑story height limit and additional written findings on the lot‑specific hardship; the motion was seconded and approved. The commission then made an identical recommendation for variance 002‑26. The chair announced that both recommendations passed by voice vote, recorded as 4–0.

What happens next: the commission’s recommendations and the applications will go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for final review. Staff said it will communicate needed clarifications to the applicant ahead of the sign‑posting and BZA submittal.

The commission handled several other items later in the meeting and adjourned at 8:03 p.m.