Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Buffer Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves 580-sq-ft addition for Millers with buffer mitigation and conditions
Summary
The Kent County Board of Zoning Appeals granted Lawrence and Donna Miller a variance to add 580 square feet to a single-family dwelling at 10129 Cove Road, finding practical difficulty due to septic location and the house partially within the critical-area buffer; approval included staff conditions and a one-year lapse provision.
Lawrence Miller and representative Buck Nickerson told the board the 100-foot critical-area buffer bisects the existing house and that a previously approved 467-square-foot addition (2003) was insufficient; Nickerson said the Millers need a slightly larger addition to accommodate appliances and aging-in-place needs. He explained that an expensive BAT nitrogen-removal septic system near the house prevents moving the new addition away from the buffer. Nickerson said the proposed 580-square-foot addition would be located farther from the water than the existing house.
Rob Tracy, associate planner, and the planning commission recommended favorable action, saying the location of the septic system and the fact a large portion of the house already lies within the buffer supported finding a practical difficulty. The Critical Area Commission provided a letter that staff interpreted as not opposing the variance but outlining required findings.
The board accepted staff and TAC comments, found the variance would be "in harmony with the general spirit and intent of the critical areas laws and regulations adopted by Kent County," and approved the request with three conditions: approval of the buffer management plan (mitigation at a 3:1 ratio for permanent disturbance), mitigation for loss of tree cover outside the buffer at a 1:1 ratio, placement of installed mitigation between improvements and the shoreline, Kent County Health Department requirements (well location shown on plan), and an expiration of the variance after one year if no substantial construction occurs.
The board recorded the motion, voted in favor, and noted the applicants must comply with the mitigation and health-department conditions before proceeding with permits.
