Dorchester planners give conditional favorable recommendation for Dixon lot-coverage variance

Dorchester County planning commissioners on an advisory panel recommended a favorable but conditional recommendation to the Board of Appeals for a variance sought by William Dixon of 5528 Whitehall Road to expand an accessory building.

Staff told commissioners the property is located in the London limited development area and is already legally nonconforming: allowable lot coverage is 5,445 square feet, existing coverage is 6,177 square feet and the proposed replacement building (1,664 sq ft replacing a 1,010 sq ft structure) would raise total coverage to 6,831 sq ft, a net increase of 654 sq ft. A county planner advised that the request “does not meet multiple variance standards” and said, “I do not recommend approval to the board of appeals.”

The critical area commission’s written opposition, read into the record, reiterated state and local critical-area presumptions against variances and noted the applicant had not demonstrated the burden of proof required under the applicable variance standards (critical-area variance criteria referenced in the record).

The applicant, whose name was entered on the record as William Dixon, and his representative argued that removing portions of the concrete driveway or relocating storage would be impractical or would devalue the property. Dixon said removing driveway slab would force cars to be parked on grass and would ‘‘make it where I’d have to start moving cars’’ to access parking, and that the proposed size was chosen to balance storage needs and neighborhood appearance.

Commissioners asked staff and the applicant to identify nearby properties that exceed the county’s 25% lot-coverage threshold and, crucially, whether those properties were built after the county’s critical-area rules were adopted. Several commissioners said if the applicant produces documentation showing precedent in the immediate vicinity (post-adoption dates and square-foot evidence), they would adopt a favorable recommendation to the Board of Appeals. One commissioner summarized the chosen path: either defer for further information or make a conditional recommendation contingent on proof of precedent. The commission voted by voice in favor of a recommendation conditioned on the applicant providing dates, square footage, and permit or other evidence that comparable nearby properties exceed 25% coverage and postdate the ordinance.

Next steps: the commission will forward the advisory recommendation to the Board of Appeals; the favorable recommendation will be effective only if the applicant demonstrates the requested precedent and dates at the appeals hearing.