Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dorchester County BZA denies three variances for proposed automotive service site in Knightsville
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals voted to deny three variance requests for a proposed automotive service (reduction of a Type B buffer to 14 feet, encroachment into a Type A buffer, and a two-foot building-setback reduction) after concluding the applicant had not demonstrated the statutory hardship required for variances.
The Dorchester County Board of Zoning Appeals denied three variance requests for a proposed automotive-service site in the Knightsville area on March 26, concluding the applicant did not demonstrate the hardship necessary under the county’s variance standards.
The variance package sought: a reduction of a required Type B use buffer on the south boundary from 25 feet to 14 feet (tapering back to full width beyond improvements); a variable-width encroachment into a Type A buffer on the north boundary (adjacent to a Waffle House) with no fence along that side; and a two-foot reduction of the 15-foot building setback to 13 feet. The requests arose after the applicant revised the site layout, narrowing sidewalks and drive aisles and shifting the building to increase buffer width on one side.
Applicant representative Mr. Lawler described site modifications intended to accommodate a Valvoline (automotive service) layout: a reduction of an adjacent concrete sidewalk from the preferred five feet to three feet, reducing one 12-foot service bay to 10 feet, shifting the building north to gain buffer width on the south boundary, and maintaining required building-height limits. The applicant asserted the site’s narrow dimensions limited usable width and argued that the property’s configuration created an extraordinary condition.
Property owner George Seffler testified that the family owns the land and does not plan to extend the existing mobile-home park toward the street; he said the owner expects the property ultimately to transition to commercial use and that he did not intend to harm neighboring owners. Seffler said there is a sewer and utility easement limiting the ability to shift improvements and defended the requested reductions as necessary to develop the parcel.
Several board members questioned whether the circumstances amounted to the “hardship” needed to justify variance relief and raised concerns about precedent in an area where commercial development is encroaching on existing residential uses. One board member noted that moving from one variance to three by altering the site design made it harder to find the legally required hardship. Staff had not changed its prior recommendation and asked the applicant to present the updated plan, but staff did not recommend approval.
A motion to deny the variance application was made and seconded by board members; the board voted in favor of denial on a voice vote recorded as five ayes and no opposition. The board chair reiterated that the county must apply the ordinance standards; the denial leaves the site to be developed only within the current zoning and setback/buffer requirements unless the applicant returns with a different proposal or succeeds on appeal.
Votes at a glance: Variance package (Type B buffer reduction to 14 feet; Type A buffer encroachment; 2-foot building-setback reduction) — Motion to deny made from the floor; seconded by Mr. Dixon; vote recorded as five ayes, zero opposed; outcome: denied.
