Hearing officer approves variance to allow garage in front of Rockville home with landscaping conditions

Kevin Smedley, the appeal hearing officer appointed by the Town of Rockville and a planner with the Five County Association of Governments, approved a variance on the basis that the lot’s steep grade and rock field make locating an accessory garage behind the house impractical.

Smedley opened the public hearing and reviewed the five statutory criteria that must be met for a variance. The applicant said the proposed accessory building would have a footprint of about 2,000 square feet (approximately 46 by 42 feet), a lowered roof profile of roughly 17 feet, and would be used primarily for vehicle and trailer storage. “It's about 46 wide and 42 deep,” the applicant said.

Neighbors raised aesthetic and siting concerns during public comment. One nearby resident who lives two properties west said he was “totally against it,” citing familiarity with the neighborhood. The applicant responded that the structure would be metal but insulated and color‑coordinated to match the existing stucco home and metal roof and that landscaping would be used to blend the building into the setting.

Smedley found that the applicant demonstrated special circumstances tied to the parcel’s topography and rock field that hinder rear placement. He noted that he had observed a “small handful” of properties in the same zone with accessory structures located in front of the home, and concluded that literal enforcement of the location requirement would impose an unreasonable hardship for this lot. Rather than deny the request, Smedley said he would grant the variance but attach conditions.

Conditions required by the decision include a landscape screening plan placed on the west and south sides of the structure to ensure “the home is still the dominant feature” when viewing the property, minimization of ingress/egress disturbance (for example, reducing driveway width), and design review by the Planning Commission to confirm materials, color and screening are appropriate. Smedley said those conditions are allowable under state law and local code.

The applicant agreed to prepare a more detailed plan and a planting schedule for review. Smedley closed the hearing after announcing his decision and the conditions.

The decision is administrative by the appointed appeal officer; no council vote was recorded at the hearing. Next procedural steps identified on the record were preparation of the detailed landscaping and design materials and review by the Planning Commission per the officer’s conditions.