Well, and then my COVID to ground the closed web.

But it will be a part of our speech, but if you like to depend on which meeting is being transcribed and summarized.

Can you uh please call um roll call, please?

Yes, sir.

Mr.

Jenkins.

Here.

Mr.

Gallo?

Here.

Mr.

Simpson.

Here.

Miss Denny.

Here.

Miss Hudson.

Here.

Mr.

Cusick.

Here.

Thank you.

That is six present.

Thank you.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Jesse Lindenberg.

I am a planner with planning office, and I will be residing as the hearing officer for tonight's meeting.

To my left, we have Mark Kennedy, our AT specialist, and down at the end, we have Mr.

Fred Townsend, the legal counsel for the board.

Thank you.

At this time, everyone please stand for pledge allegiance.

Yes, sir.

The applicants for application A twenty six oh two have withdrawn their application, so we would need to remove that from the agenda.

All right, thank you.

Public hearing introduction.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Jesse Lindenberg, and I will preside as the hearing officer for tonight's public hearing.

This hearing is being conducted for the purpose of providing the citizens of the county an opportunity to present testimony on these applications before the Kent County Board of Adjustment.

Everyone will have an opportunity to speak.

This will provide those who wish an opportunity to give their testimony.

If there is a group of interested citizens in favor or opposed to any of the applications, they may wish to elect one spokesperson among them to present testimony to the board.

Furthermore, there shall be no cross-examination of witnesses permitted during the public hearing, but the board can ask the applicant questions after any opposition if necessary.

As a courtesy to other participants in this hearing, a maximum of five minutes will be allotted to any person who wishes to provide testimony.

The chairperson of the board has the discretion to allow additional time if deemed to be necessary.

To make statements when your application is called, and for the record, please give your name, address, and allow our attorney to swear you in prior to providing testimony.

Copies of any written statements or exhibits used during the hearing should be presented for identification so that they may be included in the permanent record.

The procedure on each application will be as follows.

The legal notice will be read on each case prior to the receipt of testimony.

There will be a brief explanation of the application by the staff.

The board will then receive testimony from all of those in favor of the application, followed by testimony of those who may be opposed.

Once those persons in favor and those in opposition have had an opportunity to speak, the hearing on the application will be declared closed.

Decisions on all applications heard this evening will be made by the board during the business meeting following the public hearing.

However, you are not required to remain after the public hearing once your request has been heard and closed.

During the business meeting, the board will consider all information of record.

A common vote of four members of the board shall be required to make a decision on each application.

If you do not wish to wait for the business meeting later this evening, you may call the Kent County Planning Department tomorrow between 8 a.m.

and 5 p.m.

at 744-2471 to learn of the board's ruling.

All applicants will receive written notification of the board's decision.

This notice may not be mailed until after the next scheduled meeting, but if approved, you are welcome to apply for any necessary permits prior to receiving this by mail.

Please keep this decision in your records for both you and all future property owners.

The public notice of this evening hearing was published on January 2nd, 2026 in the Delaware State News.

In addition, all of the subject properties were posted with a sign prior to the hearing to further notify the public of the nature of the applications.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Statement by counsel now.

Mr.

Townsend.

Mr.

Cusick, thank you.

The standards for the granting of area variances are set forth by the Delaware Supreme Court in the case known as Board of Adjustment versus Quick Check Realty.

The standard applied to these variances considers whether a literal interpretation of zoning regulations result in exceptional practical difficulties of ownership.

And to make that determination, the board must weigh the following four factors.

First, the nature of the zone where the property lies.

Second, the character and uses of the immediate vicinity.

Third, whether removal of the restriction on the applicant's property would seriously affect neighboring properties, and fourth, whether failure to remove the restriction would create an exceptional practical difficulty for the owner in relation to the owner's efforts to make normal improvements to the property.

Note that this factor is satisfied only when the difficulties alleged by the owner are practical rather than theoretical and exceptional rather than routine.

And here's where the board considers whether the applicant is seeking more than is minimally necessary to relieve the asserted difficulty.

In general, the board is not permitted to consider factors other than the four I've listed.

So those speaking both in support of and in opposition to applications are urged to present only information bearing directly on the four factors, which restated are one, the zoning district, two, the character of the immediate vicinity, three, the effect on neighboring properties, and four whether the applicant faces exceptional practical difficulties of ownership.

In particular, presenters are instructed to exclude from the presentations any discussion of personal disputes or acrimony between the applicant and neighboring property owners as the board is both unable and unauthorized to resolve those disputes.

Presenters must limit their remarks to the issues the board can decide.

Mr.

Cusick, that concludes my statement.

Thank you.

At this time, we'll begin the uh public hearing.

Thank you.

Our first application tonight is A 2601 for Douglas A.

and Cindy Jacobs, owner Douglas Albert Jacobs, seeking a variance from the required 25-foot front setback to enable the construction of a dwelling.

The property is located on the east side of North Bay Drive, approximately 0.45 miles north of Kitts Hommock Road, southeast of Dover.

Levy Court District 3rd zoning district is AR.

Here you can see the proposed house.

The required setback is in green, 25 foot.

The applicants are asking for a setback of 10 feet.

This property also has the denrect do not build line and a denrec easement here in the back.

Mr.

Cusick, at this time, I'd like to point out that Mr.

Simpson, our new member, will be recusing himself from consideration of this application.

All right.

Thank you.

For our pictures here, we have uh the posting looking at the property up the road, down the other way.

Another one further out of the property.

The aerial and further out.

There is someone here to represent the application.

Please come to the podium, state your name, your address, and allow our attorney to swear you in.

Hi, uh, my name is Darren Simpson with uh Blue Hend Construction.

I'm here on behalf of uh Mr.

and Mrs.

Jacobs.

Uh I am of um Simpson.

Um do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I do.

And could you give us an address, please for the record?

One Dorman Street Harrington.

Okay, you can continue with your presentation.

So as the staff report indicates, and it's it's pretty uh self-explanatory, but I'm here uh on behalf of the property owner uh requesting the 10-foot uh the variance that would allow them to have a 10-foot setback versus a 25.

Uh if you looked at the the pictures on the presentation, uh it is in keeping with the neighborhood.

Uh properties on either side of this property have already had these variances and are built or in the process of being built.

Um they are uh the the practical difficulty would be that if they have to build to this setback, the 25-foot setback, it's gonna limit the the size and shape of the house that that they could put on that property.

So they're asking for this setback to allow that property to be like the properties on either side to give them the the maximum uh usable space on the lot and to um maximize uh the footprint that's allowed.

So thank you.

Any questions?

May I?

Mr.

Simpson, for the record, you said that that strict adherence to the uh setbacks would limit your client's ability to design and construct a house in the available footprint, right?

That's correct.

Your words were it would limit it.

I mean, could you speak a little bit more to the degree to which that limitation would would impact your client's ability to design like a reasonably sized home?

So right now that would limit them to only having a house that would be 28 foot deep and then it would be set back further than all the other houses on that street.

Uh all the other houses are out at that 10-foot, and I think some of them may even be out.

If you look at the go back and look at the pictures, uh there's a couple of them that are out up and down that road pretty close.

I didn't measure them, so I can't say that they are closer than 10, but they're rate they're right at the street.

Um and with a house on pilings, uh you you're going to have to have some place to park, things like that.

So uh you if you had that house elevated um like they're proposing to do, then you can park underneath and you're not going to be imposing upon the street, even if the setback is pushed out to what they're requesting.

Is that the only uh variance as far as the setbacks, the side setbacks will remain?

Yes, the side setbacks will be okay.

The 10-foot uh side setbacks are fine.

And I think the 50, yeah, they have 50 feet um buildable area with the setbacks um currently there, the 10 foot.

So if the front setback is is not the adjustments not granted, it's gonna make it only a 28 by 50 buildable area.

And that would keep it uh, you know, in relationship to the other houses and the neighborhood.

It is it is in keeping with the neighborhood as the staff report says.

Uh not asking for any zoning changes.

And um the the like I said, the and I think it's in the staff report, but the neighboring properties have all been granted the same variance in some form or fashion.

So ultimately, um the Denrec Do Not Build line has gone up, has done a lot to make the Denrec Do Not Build Line is not the issue.

So there's two denrec lines there.

One's a do not build line, that's out closer to the water.

And then, but there's also a denrec easement that's added.

I think that's so denrect can have access across there to do beach replenishment and those types of things, whatever they need to do there.

So that's the that's the issue that's causing this.

So that is what we would consider an exceptional practical practical BF COP would be that basement line.

Yes.

If you if you look at the screen that's up, the uh denrec do not build line is out of the uh building envelope, but the denrec easement line crosses dissects it um you know pretty pretty far in the other questions.

Good, thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else present that would like to speak in favor of the application?

Do we have anyone online?

Does anyone join us online that would like to speak in favor of this application?

Please indicate by raising electronic hand.

I'm the uh property owner, I'm in favor if that that's what you're that's what you're asking.

Do you want to make a statement?

Uh no, I don't.

Okay.

I see no hands raised online.

Thank you.

Is there anyone present that would like to speak in opposition of the application?

Seeing no one, we will close the public hearing for A2601.

Thank you, and we'll go into uh business.

First thing on the uh agenda tonight is the uh election of officers.

Um need to do that first.

Um we want to so what you might typically do is ask if there is a uh motion.

Um right.

If there's if there's a motion to um uh name an officer, so which which office are we gonna do we want to start with the chair?

Yeah, we'll do chair first.

I'll make a motion um to nominate Brian Kusick.

Um to continue as chair.

So are there any other nominations aside from the one we just took?

So I think we'd say seeing none, then we'll close the nominations and ask for a vote.

Do a vote for the for the chair seat.

You don't have to give reasons for your vote either.

Do we need a second for the motion?

You can put me down for a second.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Jenkins.

I'll vote yes on the nomination for the chair.

Mr.

Gallow.

I vote yes on the nomination.

Mr.

Simpson.

I vote yes on the nomination.

Ms.

Dunny.

Yes.

Ms.

Hudson.

Yes.

Mr.

Cusick.

Yes.

Thank you.

That is six in favor.

Thank you.

With six in favor, I'll remain chair.

All right, now we need a um motion for the vice.

I'll make a nomination.

That we keep Ms.

Hudson in position of vice chair.

I'll second that nomination.

Got a motion and second for Ms.

Hudson to be vice chair.

You could ask whether there are any other nominations.

Any other nominations tonight?

Ready for vote.

All right, Mr.

Galla.

Vote yes on the nomination.

Thank you, Mr.

Simpson.

I vote yes.

Thank you, Ms.

Denny.

I'll have a yes on the nomination.

Thank you, Mr.

Jenkins.

I vote yes for my motion.

Thank you, Ms.

Hudson.

I vote yes.

Mr.

Cusick.

Yes.

Thank you.

That is six in favor.

Thank you.

Ms.

Hudson will be vice chair.

Next item is the minutes with the approval of the business meetings from the December 18th meeting.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of the December 18th, 2025 Board of Adjustment Meeting.

I second it.

Got a motion and second.

All in favor.

Next up, we need a motion for approval of the notice of the decision, A twenty-five dash thirty-three, a twenty-five-thirty-four, and a twenty-five-25.

I make a motion to approve the dis decisions for A-25-3, A-2534, A-25-25.

I'll second the motion.

For application A twenty-six dash oh one.

Yes, sir.

Application A twenty-six dash O one for the Jacobs seeking a variance from the required twenty-five-foot front setback to enable the construction of a dwelling, and they are looking for a ten-foot front setback.

Any comment discussion or motion?

Right.

This application is no different than several of those that was pointed out.

So I think uh I'd definitely be in support of it.

I agree.

I I mean these it's Ketomic and almost every lot out there has some type of an exceptional practical difficulty.

So I I second I I mean I concur with your comments.

I'll make a motion for a twenty-six oh one.

I vote to approve based off the staff recommendations.

I believe removing the restrictions does not seriously affect neighboring properties.

And there's an exceptional practical difficulty in the owners with the Denmark's building restrictions and denrecks easement.

I'll second your motion.

Got in the motion and second.

Thank you, Mr.

Jenkins.

I vote in support of application A twenty-six zero one for a couple of reasons, but mainly the uh denrect um easement and uh non-buildable line imposes a practic uh exceptional practical difficulty for the owner.

Thank you, Mr.

Gallow.

Uh vote in favor of the motion.

Uh I think the applicant representative did demonstrate exceptional practical difficulty uh with that particular lot and uh the uh easements on that lot.

And I think the um the uh variance granted is uh reasonable.

Thank you.

Uh Ms.

Denny.

I I vote yes, I think it's uh uh definitely um the uh den recates an exceptional practical difficulty and I say that in keeping with the recommendation of the planners that this be approved.

Thank you, Ms.

Hudson.

I vote yes per my motion.

Thank you, Mr.

Cusick.

I vote yes um to approve approve application a twenty-six-01 per staff recommendation.

Um I believe this checks all four criteria per the staff responses.

Thank you.

That is five in favor.

Five in favor.

With five in favor, one recused application a twenty-six-01 is approved.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I'll make a motion to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor?

Yeah, that's what I think.