JOSH DAVIS/BAYSIDE GAZETTE
Berlin Planning Director Dave Engelhart delivers documentation to the Berlin Board of Zoning Appeals Board during a meeting at Town Hall, last Wednesday.

By Josh Davis, Associate Editor

(Feb. 14, 2019) The Berlin Board of Appeals last Wednesday tabled a requested setback reduction for a residential accessory building, although one of the main concerns stated by board members was later found not to apply.

Just minutes before the appeals board meeting, homeowners Daniel and Naquelle Jacobs were given approval by the Berlin Historic Commission to replace a dilapidated garage for their 105 South Main Street home with a new, larger pole building.

They also had to appear before the appeals board, however, because the structure as proposed would require a variance from the zoning code’s setback requirements, from six feet to just two feet.

Daniel Jacobs said he and his wife moved to Berlin in May and they wanted to make improvements to the garage in order to house several vehicles. However, in going over plans with a contractor, Jacobs said they realized doing so would cost them a parking space.

Jacobs said the new building would be 24 feet by 24 feet and would replace the footprint of the current garage, along with a parking space to its left.

“We have a shared driveway,” he said. “With the narrowness of the lot, if we don’t have the variance, the building would have to be shifted three feet to the right, which would cause us to lose one of our parking spots … or [they would] have to do a lot of additional work to the back yard to regain that.

“As you know, living on Main Street in Berlin, parking is kind of at a premium as it is,” Jacobs added.

One neighbor, Bryan Brushmiller, also has a nonconforming setback for an accessory building, although that structure apparently predates town code, according to Planning Director Dave Engelhart.

“The side yard setback was … not enforced back when that was put there,” Engelhart said.

Jacobs said he spoke with Brushmiller and several other homeowners nearby, who had no issue with his plans. Brushmiller coauthored a letter saying as much, and seven other homeowners signed a document stating they also had no objections.

Board member Jay Knerr suggested building behind the existing garage, but Jacobs said there is a large tree in the way “probably hundreds and hundreds of years old.”

“There’s also another little shed back there too,” he added.

Board Chairman Joe Moore said in Ocean City, when there is an adjacent property with a similar situation, it transforms the request for a variance to the less-rigid special exception, but that is not the case in Berlin.

Moore said the board was “struggling with [the] notion of hardship,” which is a condition for a variance. He added economic situations do not constitute hardship, “so it would be something other than that.”

Moore also wondered if fire code prevented two buildings from being set so close together, referring to the structure on Brushmiller’s property.

“I would hate to see this get to a point where the fire marshal says that this request does not comport,” he said.

Moore asked Engelhart to speak to the fire marshal and the board agreed to table the matter.

Engelhart, by the following morning, said he’d already spoken with someone from the fire marshal’s office.

“They would have no involvement or inspections required for a detached pole building or garage here in Berlin, or anywhere in Worcester County unless there was a dwelling unit included (in this case there is not),” Engelhart said in an email. “The MD State Fire Code also doesn’t have any requirements for this placement or use.”

No additional Berlin Board of Appeals meetings were set as of press time.