Sec. 59-E-6.1. When required.

In accordance with the exception provisions of section 59-E-5.51, parking facilities constructed in accordance with an approved building permit, filed prior to June 28, 1984, that do not conform to the requirements of this article, are not considered in violation of this article. Under the following circumstances, however, such parking facilities must be brought into conformance with the requirements and standards of this article unless waivers from specific requirements are approved under the waiver provisions of section 59-E-5.52. In accordance with the provisions of section 59-E-6.3 concerning perimeter landscaping for certain parking facilities constructed prior to June 28, 1984, the landscaping requirements of section 59-E-2.7 do not apply if strict adherence to the landscaping requirements would result in the loss of more than 5 percent of required parking as specified in the schedule of requirements in section 59-E-3.7.

   (a)   For any enlargement or reduction of a building or structure that is greater than 10 percent of the total floor area approved prior to June 28, 1984, the off-street parking must be brought into conformance with the requirements and standards of this article.

   (b)   For any enlargement, reduction or exterior alterations of a building or structure which involves costs that are greater than 10 percent, but less than 25 percent of the total value of the building or structure, a perimeter landscape area must be provided around the parking facility as prescribed in Section 59-E-6.3.

      (1)   The total value of the building or structure is defined as the full cash value as determined by the most recent appraisal by the Supervisor of Assessments for tax assessment purposes.

      (2)   For the purposes of this section, exterior alterations include any changes in a building facade or exterior changes that alter the use or purposes of the building.

      (3)   The cost estimates for an enlargement, reduction or exterior alteration must be based on reasonable costs for similar construction or remodeling in Montgomery County. The actual costs must be demonstrated by affidavit after completion of the work.

   (c)   For any enlargement, reduction or alteration of an existing building or structure, which exceeds 25 percent of the total value of the building or structure, off-street parking must be brought into conformance with the requirements and standards of this article.

      (1)   For the purposes of this section, an alteration includes exterior alterations as described in subsection (b) above, and interior alterations that require the approval of permits by the Department. Tenant trade fixtures, mechanical equipment, plumbing, electrical improvements and interior wall treatments are not included as interior alterations.

      (2)   The cost estimates for the enlargement, reduction or alteration must be based on reasonable costs for similar construction or remodeling in Montgomery County. The actual cost must be demonstrated by affidavit after completion of the work.

   (d)   Any successive enlargements, reductions or alterations to buildings or structures must be considered in cummulation with previous enlargements or alterations made after October 15, 1984, to determine application of subsections (a), (b), and (c) above.

   (e)   Any proposed change to a building or a change in use that would require a greater number of parking spaces than were required by this Article prior to June 28, 1984 must be in conformance with the requirements of this Article.

   (f)   For parking structures constructed in accordance with a building permit issued prior to June 28, 1984, perimeter landscaping in accordance with the provisions of Section 59-E-6.3 must be provided if enlargements, reductions or alterations to the building and/or parking structures are proposed that meet the compliance criteria established in subsection (a) through (e) above.

(Legislative History: Ord. No. 10-32, § 14; Ord. No. 11-64, § 1; Ord. No. 12-1, § 1.)

   Editor’s note—Section 59-E-6.1 is quoted in Capital Commercial Properties, Inc. v. Montgomery County Planning Board, 158 Md. 88, 854 A.2d 283 (2004).