Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pier Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kent County board denies 250-foot pier extension request at Quaker Neck Road
Summary
The Kent County Board of Zoning Appeals denied Charles Shotland’s request to extend a private pier at 7989 Quaker Neck Road after concluding the applicant did not demonstrate a site-specific practical difficulty. Planning staff had noted a recommended reduced length by the planning commission.
Charles (Terrell) Shotland told the Board of Zoning Appeals he often cannot get his boat in and out of the existing dock because "the tide is so often much, much lower than it used to be," and that the dock "needs... I need a new dock." Shotland said low tides frequently leave only 1½ to 2 feet at the existing dock, creating safety and usability problems.
Rob Tracy, associate planner, said the planning commission had recommended a reduced pier length of 235 feet after reviewing the applicant’s materials, noting considerations such as "scintillation due to the farmland," neighboring pier lengths and boating traffic. Tracy said staff relied on the engineering schematic provided in the application packet that showed 5 feet at the end of the existing dock.
Board members said they had difficulty finding a practical difficulty that would justify a variance because similar tidal conditions affect other properties along the river. One member questioned using marketability or a pending sale as the basis for granting a variance. After discussion, a motion to deny the pier-length variance for the property at 7989 Quaker Neck Road was made, seconded and passed.
The denial was framed on the board’s finding that the applicant had not demonstrated the unusual property conditions or an applicant-independent hardship required under the Kent County Unified Development Ordinance to support a pier-length variance. The board indicated the planning commission’s recommended reduction addressed some concerns but did not establish the practical difficulty the board must find to grant the extension.
The board said a written decision would be drafted by counsel and returned to the parties for review within roughly a month. No public testimony in favor or in opposition was offered in the hearing beyond the applicant’s testimony.
