York County panel deadlocks on garage setback; grants 30-day deferral after owner appeals
Summary
A variance request to reduce the side-setback from 10 feet to 5.2 feet for a 1,000-square-foot prefabricated garage at 4392 Ivywood Drive drew a tie vote and was denied; the applicant accepted a board motion to defer the item 30 days to pursue alternatives with staff and neighbors.
A York County planning panel considered a request from homeowner Aaron VanRiper to place a 1,000-square-foot prefabricated metal garage adjacent to his home at 4392 Ivywood Drive in the RSF-40 zone that would require a reduction of the 10-foot side setback to about 5.2 feet.
Staff recommended denial, concluding the application did not meet all four variance criteria: while the lot is encumbered by a stream and floodplain that constrain rear placement, staff said alternative locations exist on the parcel and that the proposed structure would conflict with the character of the neighborhood. "Staff does recommend denial of this requested variance," the planner said in the staff presentation.
Applicant Aaron VanRiper told the panel he had surveyed the lot and said topography, a well and extensive wet areas limit options for siting. He described a desire to square the new building with his house to allow backing a trailer and equipment into the structure: "I just wanted to pull the whole rig in there," VanRiper said. He also said an adjacent neighbor, Bruce Piles, had told him he had no objection to the proposed placement.
Board members debated whether the application met the strict variance criteria. One commissioner said convenience alone is not sufficient to grant a variance and noted alternate sites and unusual building shapes could be considered; another member said the lot is buildable and that approval would be inappropriate given ordinance standards.
A motion to approve the variance resulted in a 2–2 tie and therefore failed. After discussion, the board offered the applicant a 30-day deferral to meet with staff and explore options including a smaller building, an altered footprint, or a recombination/land-swap with the adjacent property. The applicant accepted the option and the board voted to defer the matter for 30 days.
Staff reminded the applicant that alternatives could include a smaller or reconfigured building that would meet the setback or a recombination plat with a neighbor; if the applicant and neighbor reach an agreement, a recombination plat could remove the need for a variance. The applicant said he would pursue discussions with his neighbor and staff before the next hearing.
