The zoning hearing officer recommended denial of a request (DCO 43-25) to reduce required lot sizes from 40,000 square feet to about 22,500 square feet for two new septic-served lots. At the Sept. 16 meeting, the committee discussed the hearing record and ultimately voted to table the matter to Oct. 7 to give the petitioner additional options.

The hearing officer recommended denial because the petitioner presented limited evidence of a hardship tied to the land. Paul, a planning staff member, said the petitioner had no counsel or planning consultant at the hearing and primarily offered personal and financial hardship testimony. Paul said, “financial hardship is generally not considered” sufficient under the standards for zoning relief. The petitioner later submitted a petition from neighbors and a map showing many adjacent lots smaller than 20,000 square feet, but staff noted part of that material was submitted after the public hearing and could not be considered by the hearing officer.

Board members discussed procedural options. Paul told the committee that a text amendment under consideration would allow 20,000-square-foot septic-served lots in R-3 and R-4 zoning districts; that text amendment was expected to be before the zoning board of appeals in October and could reach the committee in early October. Members noted two paths: proceed with a vote at the county board next week (which would require a supermajority if the committee recommended denial) or table the item and permit the petitioner to seek a rehearing or resubmit with additional evidence.

The committee moved to table the item to a date certain — Oct. 7 — and a roll call recorded ayes from members present. The transcript shows recorded responses during the roll call: “Member Covert, aye. Vice chair Yu, aye. Member Kojewski? Aye. Member Martinez. Aye. And Rosark. Aye. Chair 23. Aye.” The petitioner told staff he did not object to tabling.

The petition described the proposed split as two lots of approximately 22,500 square feet each on septic and water; staff said some nearby parcels are served by well and septic while others have sewer and water. The hearing officer’s denial recommendation was based on insufficient proof of a practical hardship tied to the land.