Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Side Yard Setback topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dorchester County hearing considers side-yard setback variance for 3814 West Haven Court
Summary
The board heard case 2801, a request for a 9.5-foot variance to allow part of a proposed addition at 3814 West Haven Court to sit within the side-yard setback; staff recommended approval and a neighbor submitted a letter of support. No formal motion or recorded vote appears in the transcript.
The Dorchester County hearing considered case 2801 on a requested 9.5-foot variance to the side-yard setback at 3814 West Haven Court in East Newmarket, to allow construction of an addition that would result in a 10.5-foot side-yard setback. Staff described the request and recommended approval; the transcript contains no formal motion or recorded vote.
Staff told the board the applicant proposes a 2,149-square-foot addition, of which 444 square feet would be within the required side-yard setback. Staff said the proposed addition is placed to avoid the 100-foot tidal water buffer that runs through the rear and side yards. "The applicant is requesting a 9.5 foot side yard setback for a resultant setback of 10.5 feet," a planning staff member said during the report.
Steven Whitten, a professional land surveyor who identified himself as the agent for the applicant, explained the site layout and the constraints posed by the tidal buffer. He said the only available area for expansion is the location proposed for the addition and added that from the neighbor's perspective "this would look no different than an accessory building sitting within the side yard setback." Whitten also said the project was reviewed with the adjacent neighbor and that a letter of support from that neighbor was included in the packet.
Planning staff noted the planning commission provided a favorable recommendation conditioned on addressing stormwater runoff for the portion of roof draining toward the neighbor; staff listed possible measures such as a swale, landscape berm, or pop-up gutter emitters. During the board's deliberation the panel recited the zoning criteria and voiced affirmative findings on items including public interest, special conditions, and whether the conditions resulted from the applicant's actions.
The transcript does not record a motion, mover/second, roll-call, or the board's final vote on this case. The staff recommendation, the planning commission recommendation, the neighbor's letter of support, and the board's deliberative findings appear in the record but the final formal action is not specified in the transcript.
