The Worcester County Commissioners agreed to table a bill last week that would amend accessory building and off-street parking regulations within the county’s two campground subdivisions.
An example of an accessory building at a campground is pictured.
Submitted file photo
By Bethany Hooper, Associate Editor
Citing an abundance of shared information, the Worcester County Commissioners agreed to table a bill last week that would amend accessory building and off-street parking regulations within Worcester’s two campground subdivisions.
Following an hour-long public hearing, the Worcester County Commissioners voted 4-2 last Tuesday to table a decision on a proposed zoning code amendment that would allow a second, unenclosed accessory building on campground lots, the elimination of a 6-foot separation distance between accessory buildings and other buildings, and a reduction of parking spaces from two to one within campground subdivisions. While Commissioner Eric Fiori agreed last month to sponsor the text amendment, he told colleagues this week more time was needed to consider the testimony brought before them by several homeowners in White Horse Park and Assateague Pointe.
“I sponsored this mainly to make some changes to it …,” he said at the conclusion of the hearing. “It definitely needs to be tightened up in some areas. But also, a lot of what we learned here today is there’s a lot of things to discuss and I don’t think we have enough information right now, me personally, to make this decision. I think we owe it to the residents of both these communities to examine some of these do’s and don’ts, things that have come up in this particular hearing, and let us re-address this at a later date.”
While the zoning code for Worcester County’s campground subdivisions – White Horse Park and Assateague Pointe – allows one detached accessory building per campsite and requires two parking spaces, White Horse Park homeowner Tracey Barnhart submitted a text amendment application earlier this year to change those regulations. The amendment proposes allowing an additional unenclosed, detached accessory building on each lot, eliminating the six-foot separation distance between accessory buildings and other buildings on the same or adjoining sites, and reducing the number of on-site parking spaces from two to one.
According to county staff, the text amendment stemmed from a recent request to permit buildings such as canopies and gazebos within campground subdivisions. However, the department of development review and permitting could not process the permit application, as such a structure would be considered a second accessory building. It was then that the department was notified of several similar, unpermitted buildings within both the White Horse Park and Assateague Pointe communities.
“Inspections were conducted of both campground subdivisions and notices were sent to the owners,” a memo to the commissioners reads. “Various aspects of the proposed bill language were included by the applicant to capture as many existing circumstances as possible.”
On July 3, the Worcester County Planning Commission reviewed the proposed text amendment and voted to forward an unfavorable recommendation to the commissioners. During the public hearing, Barnhart said she and other residents were simply seeking an amendment to permit canopies and gazebos within campground subdivisions.
“They are not wooden structures, they would not be permanent,” she explained. “We’re not asking for that. They are temporary.”
Commissioner Jim Bunting said he would not support a bill that was not supported by the county’s planning commission. He argued the elimination of a six-foot separation and the reduction in required off-street parking could impede fire access.
Fire Marshal Matt Owens echoed those concerns, adding that such accessory structures could allow fires to spread to neighboring properties.
“It’s devastating enough if we lose one property in these campgrounds, and maybe even lose a life,” he said. “But if we allow these structures to be so close that one fire spreads to another and then to another unit and that causes a catastrophic event where we’re losing multiple lives and multiple properties, and the stress that puts on not only the campground community but then the fire service has to respond to that and deal with that, it’s incredible.”
However, several property owners in White Horse Park and Assateague Pointe came before the commissioners this week to seek some sort of approval. Many said they were willing to remove the parking reduction or implement other changes to allow their canopies and gazebos to remain.
Assateague Pointe homeowners Stacy Bitner and William O’Brien added that properties within their campground subdivision were different from those at White Horse Park, as they featured courtyards that provided enough separation for gazebos and canopies. Another resident, former fire marshal Dennis Gentzel, added that a 6-foot separation was not listed in the codes and standards from the National Fire Protection Association.
“Now it’s OK to have local amendments that do those things, but as a former fire officer and a former fire marshal I don’t really see the need for the six foot …,” he said.
White Horse Park homeowner Phil Wood said the additional structures being proposed were unenclosed and would not impede fire access. He added that there were several accessory buildings in his community that were permitted without the 6-foot separation.
“That is what’s in the law now,” Development Review and Permitting Director Jennifer Keener said of the 6-foot separation. “Back in the 90’s there was an appeal to the board of zoning appeals that overturned that separation that had been in the 1992 code, and a 3-foot separation was applied for fire. So a lot of what is out there is subject to that code.”
White Horse Park homeowner Liz Snowden said there were other residents within her community who had received permits to construct permanent, wooden gazebos on their properties. Keener said she wasn’t aware of her department issuing any permits for those structures.
“It’s my understanding that there were lot coverage permits issued by another department for lots that are in the critical area, but that is not the same as us issuing a permit for a building,” she replied. “That is what triggered the amendment. There were several that had them that wanted to keep them and we had to turn them away. We said we could not permit it because it’s a second accessory structure that was over the limitation.”
White Horse Park property owner Charlie Macola said he was one of those residents who had secured a critical area permit, unaware that he had to seek an additional zoning permit from development review and permitting to construct his gazebo. While Environmental Programs Director Bob Mitchell said an additional zoning permit was not needed, Keener said it was.
“Obviously there are issues that need to be resolved,” Commissioner Chip Bertino said.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the commissioners voted 4-2, with Bunting and Bertino opposed and Commissioner Caryn Abbott absent, to table a decision on the proposed text amendment.