Board requires opaque screening for Old Beach Road motorcycle shop; setback variances approved

The Kent County Board of Adjustment on Aug. 21 denied a variance that would have allowed a chain‑link fence with barbed wire to satisfy the county's required 6‑foot opaque screen at a former Webb's Produce site on Old Beach Road, and approved variances to allow the existing building and parking/drive aisles to remain closer than the zoning rules normally permit.

James Burke, the property owner, told the board he bought the former Webb's Produce building and intends to lease it to Blue Collar Cycles for motorcycle sales and service. Burke said he had purchased an opaque fence screen that, in his view, would render the new chain‑link fence visually solid. "It's the 100 series fence blocked 98%. So it knocks 98% of the view," he said. The board and staff did not have a photograph of the product to confirm whether it meets the county's definition of an opaque screen.

The board voted 7‑0 to deny the applicant's request to treat the existing chain‑link fence (with barbed wire) as meeting the opaque screening requirement; the denial means the applicant must provide a 6‑foot opaque screen or equivalent approved by the county. The board then voted 7‑0 to approve two other variances: one relieving the 20‑foot operational setback for drive aisles and parking and one relieving the 50‑foot building separation for the site (the property's building sits 30.3 feet from the rear lot line and a shed sits 4.9 feet from a side line). The approvals were supported by staff recommendations for those two setbacks and by board members' statements that the structures and site are existing and that denial would impose practical difficulty.

Christopher Lazard, a nearby resident, testified in opposition and told the board his bedroom window is about 41 feet from the business lot line and asked that the board consider more substantial screening to mitigate noise and light impacts. "My bedroom window is 41 feet from the property line of this business," Lazard said. Staff pointed out that a 6‑foot opaque fence or a vegetative screen could be required; planners recommended denying the requested fence variance because the applicant had not demonstrated the chain‑link treatment met the opaque standard.

Burke said he had ordered black mesh screening intended to attach to the chain link and described new LED lighting installed on two poles at the site to increase nighttime visibility and security. The board asked Burke to provide a photo of the screening material for staff review; staff said that if the material proves opaque it could satisfy the requirement and make the denial moot, but without the photo the board voted to require compliance.

The board's actions give the applicant two paths: install a county‑approved opaque fence/screen (the board denied the requested variance), or comply by erecting the required screening or equivalent mitigation. The approved setback variances allow the use to proceed with the existing building and parking layout, subject to any conditions recorded in the formal notice of decision.