Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New Castle Board of Adjustment approves variances to allow uniform decks on two Riverbend lots
Summary
The City of New Castle Board of Adjustment approved two variances allowing slightly larger rear decks on two Riverbend end-unit lots after the applicant said lot shape causes the decks to encroach on setback lines; no public opposition was recorded and both motions passed by majority vote.
At its meeting, the City of New Castle Board of Adjustment approved two variances to allow extended rear decks on two attached Riverbend home sites, finding the shape of the end-unit lots created an exceptional practical difficulty.
Mike Brown, the applicant, told the board he and his company purchased the remaining attached homes in the Riverbend community and asked for relief on two setback restrictions so that the same floor plan could have identical decks across the development. “We’re here for you tonight requesting relief on those two setbacks so that we can install uniform size deck,” Brown said, describing the decks as a 4-by-6-foot design about 4 feet deep.
Board members questioned whether the lots were single-family and whether neighboring properties would be affected; Brown said both affected lots back onto common area or open space and that the proposed decks would not affect neighboring uses. He explained the lots are end units with “pie-shaped” configurations that follow the curve of the road, and the rear setback line therefore clips a small corner of the proposed deck on each parcel.
No members of the public spoke in favor of or against either application during the public-comment period. Board members confirmed they would vote separately on each parcel. For application 2025-2 (parcel listed in the meeting record as 590 Arrows Lane, Newcastle, Delaware 19720) a board member moved to approve the variance and another seconded; the mover explained the character of the immediate vicinity and the lot shape as reasons to grant relief. The board voted in favor and the chair announced the variance passed.
The board then considered application 2025-3 (listed in the record as 606 Arrowgrass Lane). Members moved and seconded a motion to approve the second variance for the same reasons; the motion carried. The board adjourned shortly after the votes.
The record does not identify who made the motions or which board members cast each recorded vote by name; the meeting roll call earlier recorded Mr. Irwin, Miss Liry, Miss Scarpy and Mr. Zora as present. The board’s decisions grant the relief requested for the two parcels; any conditions or recorded findings are in the official meeting minutes and packet materials.
