Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dorchester County BZA grants variance to allow extra accessory space at Central Avenue property
Summary
The Dorchester County Board of Zoning Appeals voted to grant variance V25-14, allowing an applicant to exceed the ordinance cap on total accessory structure floor area in an R-1A zoning district after staff recommended denial.
The Dorchester County Board of Zoning Appeals on Oct. 20 granted variance V25-14 to allow property owner David W. Grooms to exceed the ordinance limit on total accessory-structure floor area at his home on Central Avenue.
The decision came after the zoning administrator told the board staff recommended denial, citing the ordinance standard that accessory-area caps are based on lot size and that existing buildings on the parcel are legal nonconforming. "Based on the facts present in the case, staff is recommending denial of the variance without being able to provide the basis for approval," the zoning administrator said during the hearing.
The variance request sought roughly 1,900 square feet of additional accessory-structure area to accommodate two new metal buildings in a property area zoned R-1A (single-family residential, one-half acre minimum). The zoning administrator told the board that one of the two lots involved meets the half-acre requirement while the other does not, and that several buildings on the property predate the county's zoning code.
Applicant David W. Grooms told the board he needed the additional enclosed space for farm equipment and to protect vehicles and equipment from repeated vandalism and wildlife damage. "I'm trying to protect my equipment," Grooms said, describing previous incidents at the rear of the property and explaining why he sought two structures rather than a single larger building.
Grooms said he had a recent survey done by David Bass to confirm property lines and that he tried multiple adjustments — including moving proposed buildings and reconfiguring sizes — before applying for a variance. He also said existing outbuildings are fully used and that he discussed options with a contractor who could not produce a single building of the needed dimensions.
The zoning administrator reviewed the variance standards in the county ordinance and concluded: there were no extraordinary conditions that would make reasonable economic use impossible, similar conditions applied to nearby properties, and the owner could retain existing nonconforming structures if the variance were denied. The staff analysis also noted that granting a variance can create expectations for similar cases in the future.
No written or spoken opposition was recorded; the county said it sent certified notice to neighbors and posted the property. After hearing testimony, one board member moved to grant the variance, saying approval "doesn't seem to be a substantial detriment to any adjacent properties." The motion received a second, and the board voted unanimously in favor by voice vote.
Motion: grant variance V25-14 to allow additional accessory-structure floor area at the Central Avenue property; mover: a board member; second: Glenn. Vote: unanimous (all aye). The board did not attach conditions beyond the variance approval.
The board closed the public hearing after the vote and had no further new business on the agenda that night.
