Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Applicant granted after‑the‑fact setback variance for existing garage; board cites hardship

Worcester County Board of Zoning Appeals · March 12, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Worcester County Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously granted an after‑the‑fact variance reducing the side‑yard setback from 8 feet to 6.5 feet for an existing detached garage at 9 Burghill Drive after the applicant said a resurvey revealed the encroachment and removal would impose a hardship on elderly owners.

The Worcester County Board of Zoning Appeals on March 12 approved an after‑the‑fact variance to reduce the required side‑yard setback from 8 feet to 6.5 feet for an existing detached garage at 9 Burghill Drive.

The applicant, Susanna Specht, told the board she represents elderly parents who moved to Frederick and discovered during an attempt to sell the house that the garage lacked a final occupancy inspection and a recent resurvey showed the garage sits 6.5 feet from the property line instead of the required 8 feet. "The garage has been there for over 22 years," Specht said, and she argued that moving or demolishing it would be a hardship while the family is trying to sell the property.

Board members asked about permitting records and contractor information. Specht said she had inspection records for the footer but not contractor contact information and that she had been told by Ocean Pines association staff that the property was cleared for resale. Staff and the board discussed whether any other violations existed; Specht said there were not. The board considered the standard variance criteria, including special conditions resulting from prior survey/permit work and the practical difficulty of removing the garage after decades in place.

After board discussion, the chair moved to grant Case 26‑15; a board member seconded the motion and the board voted in favor. The vote was recorded as unanimous in favor of the variance.

The decision grants the property relief to keep the existing garage in its current location; no additional conditions beyond those discussed at the hearing were recorded on the record. The applicant said the family is trying to sell the house and that the owners are elderly and in poor health, which the board cited in weighing hardship. The board proceeded to the next docket item following the vote.