Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends approval of administrative variance for Grazer property with 3:1 mitigation
Summary
The commission recommended approval of an administrative variance allowing replacement and relocation of an accessory building on a resource conservation property, finding a net reduction in lot coverage and conditioning approval on a buffer management plan and 3:1 mitigation per chapter 68-25(e).
The Dorchester County Planning Commission recommended approval of an administrative variance for property owners John and Carrie Grazer to replace an existing roughly 1,400-square-foot accessory building with an 1,800-square-foot building and to relocate it to avoid the 25-foot non-tidal wetland buffer.
Staff read the application into the record, identifying the parcel on tax map 0039, parcel L012, and noting that the property is designated resource conservation and encumbered by multiple buffers including a 100-foot shoreline buffer, a 25-foot non-tidal wetland buffer, and an expanded buffer for hydric soils. Staff said the proposal would relocate the new structure entirely outside the 25-foot non-tidal wetland buffer while placing it in the expanded buffer for hydric soils and would remove approximately 3,767 square feet of existing lot coverage, yielding a net reduction in lot coverage of 1,967 square feet.
The staff recommendation said the proposed configuration conforms to critical-area regulations as much as practicable and recommended approval of the administrative variance if the property owner provides a buffer management plan and mitigation at a 3:1 ratio in accordance with chapter 68-25(e).
Applicant agent Steve Witten testified that the project minimizes impacts by relocating the building over existing gravel and achieves a net reduction in impervious area while allowing the owner’s desired expansion. “What we’ve done is minimize the impact, relocate the building over existing gravel, and end up with a net reduction in the lot coverage,” Witten said.
Commission discussion clarified buffer definitions and regulations (100-foot, 25-foot, and expanded hydric-soil buffers), and commissioners noted that where a site is entirely within expanded buffer it may qualify for internal approval under a 75% rule, but the Grazer property did not meet that exception. After discussion, a motion recommending approval was made, seconded, and approved by voice vote.
The recommendation includes a condition that the owners submit a buffer management plan and provide mitigation at the prescribed 3:1 ratio; the commission will forward its recommendation and the record to the county for the administrative variance to be processed and finalized.
