The Graham County Board of Adjustment voted to approve a variance allowing a property owner to construct an attached garage with a 3‑foot side setback from the west property line instead of the county’s 10‑foot side setback for structures attached to a livable residence.

Mark Kavanaugh, Graham County building inspector and zoning enforcement officer, opened the case and explained the legal basis for the hearing: the board may grant variances when strict application of the land‑use ordinance would cause unnecessary hardship given a property’s particular conditions. "My name is Mark Kavanaugh. I know I sent you guys all the emails. I'm a building inspector plus the zoning enforcement officer for Graham County," he told the board when he presented the request and the county’s position.

The property owner, identified in the hearing as Eric Ornelas, described the proposal as an addition to an existing concrete pad behind his home to house vehicles and recreation equipment in a three‑bay garage that would match his house’s exterior. Ornelas said the pad was engineered for a future structure and that the proposed addition would replace temporary storage units he currently uses. He told the board he retired earlier this year and wants a permanent, visually matching structure rather than a metal carport.

Neighbor Cindy Woodman, who said she owns property at 1305 Central Avenue and an adjacent vacant lot, urged the board to deny the variance on the grounds of precedent and neighborhood character. "I would say vote no on the variance," Woodman said during public comment, adding that the subdivision was intended for site‑built homes and that variances can set unwanted precedents. Two neighboring property owners — listed in the hearing packet as Mr. Evans (to the west) and Quentin Kavanaugh (to the east) — submitted written approvals; Evans and Quentin Kavanaugh did not object during the public comment period.

County staff and the applicant addressed technical concerns raised at the hearing. Kavanaugh told the board the lot coverage limit in the applicable RSB zoning is 50 percent and that the applicant’s existing roof coverage was 0.16 (16 percent) and that the proposed addition would add 0.02 (2 percentage points), bringing total coverage to about 0.18 (18 percent), well under the limit. Health and septic (leach line) locations were discussed; the applicant said he previously paid roughly $7,000 to relocate leach lines for prior work, and county staff said the leach field limits where structures can be placed unless the line is moved again.

Drainage and engineered slab capacity were also discussed: the owner said the concrete pad includes a shallow guttered taper for erosion control and that the pad and footings were previously inspected when the “toy box” addition was constructed. Staff told the board that, if the variance were approved, the applicant would still need to submit building plans, obtain a building permit, and have the proposed work reviewed and inspected before construction.

Board members asked about how the variance would affect neighboring properties in the future. Staff explained that because the proposed addition would be attached to the existing roof line it is treated as part of the livable structure and therefore governed by the 10‑foot side setback; detached accessory buildings are subject to lesser setbacks (a 5‑foot side setback was cited for detached accessory structures). Staff also noted a change mentioned at the hearing: a state “casita” law and related rule changes expected to take effect Jan. 1, 2026, would reduce certain side setbacks in the future (staff emphasized those rules are not in force now and would not change the current hearing).

After public comment and discussion, a board member moved to approve the variance to allow a 3‑foot side setback to the west for the proposed attached garage; another member seconded the motion and the board voted in favor. The hearing record indicates the motion “carries” and the variance was approved. The board and staff reiterated that approval does not replace building‑permit review; Kavanaugh noted any approved variance would be reflected in the property record and that the applicant must still submit engineered plans and secure required permits.

The board adjourned after the vote; staff announced a future training session for board members on variance procedures.

Ending
The approved variance allows the applicant to proceed to the county building‑permit review stage with plans for an attached three‑bay garage that would sit approximately 3 feet from the west property line. The applicant must submit engineered drawings and obtain a building permit; those plans will be reviewed for structural, septic/leach‑line, and drainage compliance before any construction may begin.