Kent County Board of Adjustment Meeting – May 21, 2026

The Kent County Board of Adjustment convened on the evening of May 21, 2026, at approximately 7:00 PM (the agenda listed 11:00 AM). Chairman Cusick presided with six members present (Messrs. Simpson, Gallow, Jenkins, Cusick and Mses. Denny, Hudson). Hearing officer Jesse Lindenberg and legal counsel Fred Townsend guided the proceedings, with Townsend explaining the four-factor Quick Check Realty standard for area variances and the alternative reasonable accommodation standard under the ADA when disabilities are involved. The Board heard five variance applications, each involving public testimony, deliberation, and a vote.

Application A26-09: Decker – Side Setback for Attached Carport

Applicant: Anna Decker, 348 Rustic Lane. She requested a variance to construct an attached carport 3 feet 6 inches from the side property line (code requires 5 feet). Decker testified she is older, has limited mobility (two knee surgeries, two hip replacements, holds a valid handicap parking permit), and had difficulty removing snow and ice from her car last winter. The carport would be permanent and match the house. Two neighbors submitted letters of support. No opposition was voiced.

Discussion: Staff noted the application could be evaluated under the ADA reasonable accommodation criteria (must be reasonable, not alter the property’s development, and address the person’s disability) rather than the traditional four-factor test. Board members asked about the 24-foot width, which the applicant said was needed to maintain access to a rear gate used for deliveries and equipment.

Vote: Motion to approve passed 6-0. The Board found the carport was a necessary accommodation for her disability, reasonable, and not altering the development plan.

Application A26-10: Myers – Height Variance for Pole Building

Applicant: William Leroy Myers, Tammy Myers (formerly McIntyre), Cedarfield Road, Frederica. They requested a variance from the 20-foot maximum height for a residential accessory structure to construct a pole building with an average height of 22 feet 5 inches. The property is a 5-acre wooded lot in an Agricultural Conservation district. Myers, a retired cabinet maker, plans a two-story woodworking shop; the second floor requires a shallower roof pitch to gain usable space, but the average height exceeds the code. He has spent $750 on design plans. Neighbor Hubert Touchard testified the building would not be visible from the road or his home due to dense trees, and he supported the request. Staff recommended denial, stating no exceptional practical difficulty was demonstrated.

Discussion: Several board members questioned whether the applicant showed an exceptional practical difficulty. Myers stated that without the variance, he would either build an 80-foot-long single-story building or two separate structures, which he argued would look commercial and harm the property’s wildlife habitat certification. He also noted the ridge height would be the same regardless of roof pitch. The Board debated the visibility of the 2.5-foot excess, the financial cost of redesign, and the prevalence of pole buildings in the area. The motion to deny failed 3-3 (Gallow, Simpson, Denny in favor; Jenkins, Hudson, Cusick against). A subsequent motion to approve passed 4-2 (Hudson, Denny, Jenkins, Cusick in favor; Gallow, Simpson against). The Board cited the secluded location, minimal visual impact, and that removal of the restriction would not seriously affect neighboring properties.

Application A26-11: Nolt – Rear Setback for Patio

Applicant: Brunal Nolt Jr., 327 Peacock Place, Dover. He sought a variance to build an uncovered paver patio 5.8 feet from the rear property line (code requires 10 feet). The lot abuts passive open space and a wetland buffer. He already has a covered porch and wanted a ground-level patio to enjoy the outdoors and place a grill. He collected letters of support from neighbors but one neighbor, Rowena Gillespie of 343 Peacock Place, testified in opposition, stating the patio would obstruct her limited angled view of the wetlands and reduce her property’s enjoyment. She noted the setback is uniform for all homes in the subdivision.

Discussion: The Board questioned whether the applicant had demonstrated an exceptional practical difficulty. He admitted there was no hardship other than wanting more space and a better view. Members noted there were alternative configurations (e.g., wrapping the patio around the side) and that a 5-foot allowed patio was already possible. The neighbor’s concerns about view obstruction and precedent were considered.

Vote: Motion to deny passed unopposed (6-0). The Board found no exceptional practical difficulty and concluded that granting the variance could seriously affect the neighbor’s view.

Application A26-12: Fisher – Side Setback for Church Use

Applicant: Violet Fisher, Monica Fisher, Ronald Fisher (Bishop), 270 Enns Road, Hartly. They requested a variance to use an existing building (currently a storage/garage) as a place of worship; the building is 6 feet from the side property line, while the required setback for a church is 15 feet. The property is zoned AR (Agricultural Residential). Engineer Kevin Minick and Bishop Fisher testified. The congregation of about 40 members currently meets elsewhere and wants to move to this 5-acre property. The building is existing and will be expanded. Neighbors Stephen and Patricia submitted a letter stating they were neither for nor against but raised concerns about traffic, noise, and potential commercial use. The applicant offered to provide landscape screening. Staff recommended approval with conditions for buffering.

Discussion: Board members discussed the alternative of building a new church elsewhere on the lot, but staff clarified that if the existing building remains, it would also have to meet setbacks; thus, denying the variance would force demolition of the building, creating a hardship. The Board agreed a landscape buffer was appropriate. The motion included a condition: an extended landscape buffer 50 feet south from the corner of the existing building.

Vote: Motion to approve with the buffer condition passed 6-0. The Board found exceptional practical difficulty due to the existing structure’s location and the financial burden of demolition.

Application A26-14: Gribinski – Front Fence Height Variance

Applicant: James Gribinski, 18 Chucker Crossing, Dover (Quail’s Nest subdivision). He requested a variance to install a 6-foot-high fence within the 30-foot front setback (code allows 4 feet) on a corner lot with double frontage. He has four young children and a large dog, and highlighted safety concerns about children playing near the road and the dog escaping. Neighbor and HOA board president Sheila Copeland testified in support, citing safety issues in the neighborhood (potential drug activity, strangers entering yards). The applicant conducted sight-line tests and photographic evidence showing a 6-foot fence would not impair driver visibility. He had HOA approval. Staff recommended denial based on code, but noted the corner lot creates a challenge.

Discussion: Board members weighed the corner lot’s double frontage as an exceptional practical difficulty compared to interior lots. The safety of children and the dog was emphasized. One member (Mr. Gallow) opposed on aesthetic and precedent grounds, noting that corner lots are common and tall fences create a “canyon effect.”

Vote: Motion to approve passed 5-1 (Gallow dissenting). The Board found the double frontage and safety concerns constituted an exceptional practical difficulty and that removal of the restriction would not seriously affect neighboring properties.

Application A26-13: Saunders – Rear Setback for Addition

Applicant: Clint Saunders, 475 Quail’s Nest Drive, Dover (Quail’s Nest subdivision). He requested a variance to build a 22-foot-deep addition (18 ft wide) located 24.4 feet from the rear property line (required setback is 30 feet). He wants to create a first-floor room to accommodate an elderly aunt in a wheelchair who may need to live with him. The lot has constraints: a peat moss septic system, well, gas line, and HVAC equipment limit other buildable areas. He has not hired an architect yet; staff recommended denial due to lack of exceptional difficulty.

Discussion: The Board questioned why he could not add to the side of the house (blocked by doors, windows, and utilities). The addition would be attached to the kitchen and would allow conversion of the existing dining room into a bedroom accessible to the wheelchair-bound relative. The HOA president expressed concerns about contractor impacts and wetland buffers but did not formally oppose. Board members noted the applicant came before building, the medical need, and the limited alternative locations.

Vote: Motion to approve passed 6-0. The Board found exceptional practical difficulty based on the lot’s unique constraints and the necessity to accommodate a disabled family member, and that the addition would not harm neighbors (rear abuts HOA open space).

Key Outcomes

| Application | Request | Vote | Result | |-------------|---------|------|--------| | A26-09 Decker | Carport side setback | 6-0 | Approved | | A26-10 Myers | Pole building height (22.5 ft vs 20 ft) | 4-2 | Approved (motion to deny failed 3-3) | | A26-11 Nolt | Patio rear setback | 6-0 | Denied | | A26-12 Fisher | Church side setback | 6-0 | Approved with buffer condition | | A26-14 Gribinski | Front fence height on corner lot | 5-1 | Approved | | A26-13 Saunders | Rear setback for addition | 6-0 | Approved |

The Board adjourned after the business meeting.