In a recent government meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss a variance request from residents Brian Ralph Gardner and Victoria Lane Gardner, who seek to make significant additions to their historic home at 492 Wharton Grove Lane. The proposed construction includes a porch addition and a new master suite designed for accessibility, particularly for family members with mobility challenges.

The variance request involves encroachments into both the south and north side setbacks, reducing the south side yard to 12.75 feet and the north side yard to 12.9 feet. The Gardners argue that the existing structure, built in the 1890s, lacks adequate first-floor living space for aging family members, as the current layout features bedrooms and bathrooms primarily on the second floor.

During the hearing, Victoria Gardner emphasized the need for a handicap-accessible master suite, citing personal experiences with family members who require such accommodations. She expressed the urgency of the situation, noting her own health issues that could necessitate similar accessibility in the future.

However, the proposal faced opposition from neighboring residents, including Sharon Brook and her husband Francis Brook, who raised concerns about the potential impact on the historic character of the Wharton Grove community. They argued that the Gardners had not adequately communicated their plans to the community or sought necessary approvals from the Wharton Grove Association, which aims to preserve the area's historic aesthetic.

The Brooks highlighted that their own renovations adhered to the community's covenant restrictions, which they believe should apply to the Gardners' proposed changes as well. They expressed fears that the new construction would significantly reduce light and value to their property, as the additions would come within 12 feet of their home.

The county attorney clarified that while private covenants are not enforced by the county, the board must consider the zoning code when making decisions on variance requests. The hearing concluded with the board deciding to table any action on the variance until a future meeting, allowing for further discussion and consideration of community input.