Appeal hearing officer approves variance to allow garage in front of Rockville home, with screening and design-review conditions

An appeal hearing officer approved a variance on the spot to allow an accessory garage to be built in front of a Rockville home, imposing conditions for landscaping and a planning commission design review.

Kevin Smedley, the appeal hearing officer, opened the public variance hearing and said he had reviewed the applicant’s materials and visited the site. After hearing argument and neighborhood comment, Smedley said, “I, I’m going to approve the variance but I’m I under state law, I can apply conditions.” He then outlined screening and design requirements and closed the hearing.

Why it matters: The town’s land-use code generally bars accessory buildings placed in front of a primary residence. The applicant said the lot’s steep grade and a “rock field” behind the house make siting a garage to the rear impractical. Neighbors said they objected to a front-yard metal building and raised concerns about neighborhood character.

What the applicant said: The resident who applied for the variance described a plan the record shows as roughly “approximately 2,000 square” and later gave outside dimensions of “about 46 wide and 42 deep.” He said the current design reduces roof height compared with an earlier plan and that he has not finalized contractor plans because he has been waiting for the variance.

Neighbor concerns: A nearby resident said they had only received a letter and voiced opposition: “So I’m totally against it,” the neighbor said, later asking how a metal building would fit with existing neighborhood homes. Attendees noted several nearby properties have metal accessory buildings, though typically located behind the home.

Officer findings and conditions: Smedley said he observed a small number of front-yard accessory structures in town and that the site’s topography supported a hardship finding. He approved the variance with conditions requiring landscaping on the west and south sides to screen the structure so the house remains the visually dominant feature and directing the applicant to minimize visual disturbance from any new driveway or ingress/egress. He also said the planning commission must review the final design to confirm adequate screening and reduced driveway width.

Process and next steps: The applicant told the hearing he will submit a more detailed planting schedule and site plan for the planning commission review. The transcript does not specify the hearing date.

The hearing record contains no formal roll-call vote; the appeal hearing officer issued the decision and closed the hearing.