Members of a Kent County decision-making body voted to deny a variance request after determining the application did not meet the required criteria for hardship, members said.

The decision followed testimony and staff comments about on-site septic capacity, whether a perk test had been completed, and the timing of permit activity. A county staff member said the applicant’s permit filing fell outside a one-year timeframe by roughly four to five months, meaning the applicant would have avoided the hearing if the permit had been filed earlier.

The panel discussed whether the property’s existing well and the placement of a proposed septic system would meet setback requirements. A member asked whether the area had been staked and soil-tested and whether setbacks from the existing well and dwelling would be met, and staff confirmed those questions remained unresolved in the record.

Members also referenced a prior variance that included a condition preventing an additional dwelling on the property while a business located there was operating. One member said testimony suggested a hardship and that the proposed use was consistent with surrounding properties; other members disagreed, saying they could not identify any of the four statutory hardship criteria and therefore supported denial.

The motion to deny the variance carried based on the staff recommendation and the testimony presented. The record shows multiple members voting in favor of denial; specific vote tallies were not provided in the transcript excerpts.

The panel did not adopt changes to the prior variance record during the discussion. Staff will retain responsibility for any further procedural or permitting clarifications requested by the applicant.