Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Worcester County BZA grants after‑the‑fact variances for Arisling Road garage and shed
Summary
The Worcester County Board of Zoning Appeals approved an after‑the‑fact variance for a detached garage and separately voted to grant a variance for an existing shed at 7109 Arisling Road, citing site constraints including a septic reserve area, a well and dense vegetation.
The Worcester County Board of Zoning Appeals on Sept. 11 approved an after‑the‑fact variance allowing a detached garage that had been built inside the side‑yard setback at 7109 Arisling Road, and separately granted a variance for an existing shed after deliberation and a divided vote.
The variances were requested for property listed as Tax Map 72, Parcel 101 in the A‑1 Agricultural District. The applicant sought relief from the 20‑foot side‑yard requirement to keep a garage that encroached 1.5 feet (reducing the side yard from 20 feet to 18.5 feet) and to legalize a shed that encroached roughly 12.3 feet (reducing a 20‑foot side yard to about 7.7 feet), according to testimony and the submitted site plans.
Surveyor Russell Hammond, who prepared the as‑built survey and exhibits in the case, told the board the lot is constrained by a septic reserve area (SRA), the location of a well and mature vegetation that limit buildable space. Hammond said the contractor who placed the garage “did not adhere to those setbacks, and then that’s what necessitates this after‑the‑fact request.” He also testified the homeowners pursued the standard permitting process and that a foundation location survey had been required during inspections.
Neighbor Robert A. Clark, who identified himself as a Worcester County deputy sheriff and lives across Arisling Road, told the board he had no objection and described the home as appropriate for the neighborhood. “I have no problem with what they’ve done there, and it looks very nice as well,” Clark said.
Board members discussed contractor licensing and whether the contractor or surveyor should have attended the hearing to explain discrepancies. The board was told the contractor carried a Maryland license, though the contractor was not present at the hearing.
Votes at the meeting: the board approved the variance for the garage by voice vote; the motion on the shed also passed but with a split vote. The record shows the garage variance was approved without recorded opposition and the shed variance passed on a 4–2 tally.
The board’s decision referenced a string of recent, similar after‑the‑fact variances in the county that staff had compiled and presented to the panel. Board members said the lot’s narrow buildable area, combined with existing infrastructure and vegetation, supported a finding of practical difficulty warranting relief. The county will record the decision in the case file for Tax Map 72, Parcel 101.
The applicants were represented at the hearing; the board did not impose additional mitigation conditions in the motions recorded on the docket. The transcript indicates the board handled the garage and shed as separate formal motions and votes.
