Commission approves carport conditional use permit at 491 Bluebird Lane with removal and fence conditions

The Fairview Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of a conditional use permit for an accessory carport at 491 Bluebird Lane, subject to conditions requiring the removal of an existing third accessory shed and installation of a solid rear fence along the property line.

Staff presentation and background Israel, a planning staff member, told the commission the site is 0.49 acres in the RE-1 district. The carport — described in staff materials as roughly 30 by 17 feet (a little more than 500 square feet) — is the applicant’s third detached accessory structure on the property, which triggers the conditional use process for accessory buildings in that zoning category. Israel said the 900-square-foot detached garage on the lot received a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment in 2008 for reduced side and rear setbacks; the new carport, as-built, sits about 7 feet from the rear property line. For detached accessory structures above 500 square feet in RE-1, staff noted a 30-foot rear setback applies under current standards.

Applicant’s statements The property owner (identified in the hearing transcript as Cody) told commissioners he built the carport without obtaining a permit because he did not realize a raised carport qualified as a building requiring permits. In his words: “I built this not knowing that I needed a permit.” He said he stopped finishing the structure after staff raised concerns, has not installed electricity, and that the carport was set near an existing fence line to avoid driving over underground septic lateral lines. Cody said he is prepared to remove the older shed if required and that he would paint the carport to improve its appearance.

Public comment Several neighbors spoke. Jill Jones, a homeowner behind the property, called the structure “very unsightly” and said it had reduced her backyard views; she asked that screening or other mitigation be required. Multiple neighbors spoke in support: Steve Ogden (a former council member), John McFadden (a longtime resident and former P&Z member), Scott Brown and Arthur Hood each described Cody as a good neighbor and said the carport was not unsightly from their view. Tony Green also spoke in support and urged approval.

Commission discussion and conditions Commissioners discussed multiple concerns: the 7-foot setback as-built (versus the 30-foot requirement for >500 sq. ft. in RE-1), the property’s legacy lot patterns in the Dreamland/Bluebird area, the existing 900-square-foot garage’s prior variance, and neighbor impacts. Commissioners pressed whether the carport could be moved or reoriented to improve setbacks; the applicant said relocation would interfere with access and septic laterals. Several commissioners noted precedent for reduced setbacks in the neighborhood and that older subdivision parcels predate current zoning, but also expressed concern about allowing newly built structures to remain if they conflict with current rules.

Motion and outcome A commissioner moved to recommend approval of the CUP for the accessory carport at 491 Bluebird Lane with two conditions: (1) the applicant remove the existing third accessory shed (the older small shed on the lot), and (2) install a solid fence behind the carport along the length of the property (commission language: a solid 6-foot fence). A second was received and the motion passed. Staff reminded the applicant that, per the town’s process, the commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to council for the final decision.

Why it matters The case highlights conflicts that arise when older, small-lot subdivisions are later subject to RE-1 standards that assume larger minimum lot sizes. The commission approved a conditional exception, but required mitigation intended to reduce visual impact on neighbors and to bring the site closer to local expectations about accessory building numbers and screening.

What remains The applicant must obtain final approvals as required by the town (including council review), remove the specified accessory structure, and construct the fence to comply with the commission’s conditions before the carport is considered fully permitted.