Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Setback topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Emmitsburg board denies request to place portable shed less than 3 feet from lot line at 305 West Main
Summary
The Emmitsburg Board of Appeals voted to deny a variance request that would have allowed a portable shed at 305 West Main Street to sit less than 3 feet from the side property line, concluding the applicant did not meet the legal standard for a variance despite claims of hardship and a neighbor's written consent.
The Emmitsburg Board of Appeals on April 20 denied a variance request that would have let a business owner place a portable shed less than 3 feet from the side lot line at 305 West Main Street. Planning staff had recommended denial after concluding the applicant did not satisfy the narrow, property‑specific standard needed for a variance under town code section 17.12.0.050.
Staff presented the case, telling the board the village zone contains many narrow lots and that the applicant’s site constraints were not unique to the property. "The board may grant a variance only if it finds beyond a reasonable doubt that all the required standards are met," staff said, recommending denial because the first standard — that an exceptional or extraordinary condition is unique to the property — was not clearly met.
Melissa Wetzel, the applicant, told the board the portable 8‑by‑16 shed was necessary to store large seasonal Christmas decorations used to decorate her business and the downtown area. "We're asking the town to please understand, it would be a hardship for us if we had to rent a storage unit," Wetzel said. She also submitted a signed letter from adjacent property owner Brewco Incorporated saying that owner had no objection to locating the shed less than 3 feet from the property line.
Board members questioned whether the shed could be located elsewhere on Wetzel’s property within setback requirements and discussed alternatives such as placing the unit temporarily between garage doors. Counsel and staff stressed that the legal test focuses on whether the condition is peculiar to the lot, not on how other nonconforming sheds came to exist in the village zone.
Several board members and staff noted the issue highlighted a recurring tension between current setback rules and the built character of the village commercial corridor. Planning staff said the town has solicited bids to rewrite the village‑zone code and that any change to the 3‑foot requirement would be pursued through the planning commission and board of commissioners, a process that staff said could take months.
After discussing the legal standard and alternatives, a board member moved to adopt staff’s recommendation to deny the variance. The motion was seconded and carried on a voice vote; the board recorded the motion as adopted. The denial preserves the current enforcement of the 3‑foot side setback requirement while the town pursues a possible code update.
The record from the hearing includes the applicant’s letter from Brewco Incorporated and staff memoranda describing the applicable town‑code sections. The board noted that residents and property owners encountering similar constraints may request that the planning commission review the village‑zone setback policy.
