Board approves 60-by-80 accessory barn and variances for Artisan Court lot

The Board of Zoning Appeals approved variances requested to construct a 60-by-80-foot accessory structure 26 feet high on a five-acre parcel adjacent to 1775 Artisan Court. The petitioner, John Rickard, sought relief from accessory-structure placement rules and minimum lot-area and height limits in the agricultural (AG) overlay district.

Jason Henderson, representing the petitioner and identifying himself as with THG Surveying, read the petitioner's findings and described the building as a barn for personal storage. Henderson told the board, "The barn will be used for personal storage. The structure will be located and constructed in accordance with all applicable building codes and will not pose a safety risk to surrounding properties or residents."

Staff findings said the structure would meet required setbacks, would not create vision-clearance issues, and would not encroach on property lines or recorded easements. Staff also explained a practical difficulty: the petitioner's adjoining parcel that would create a larger conforming lot cannot be combined because part of that parcel is municipally tax-exempt (MTE). The staff summarized that the auditor's office would not permit combining an MTE parcel with a taxable parcel, so the petitioner could not avoid the need for variances by lot consolidation.

During public comment and board questioning, neighbors asked about driveway type, visibility and landscaping. The petitioner, John Rickard, said the building would primarily store restored tractors, trucks and trailers and described it as "storage and a man cave, more or less." Rickard and his spouse, Jenny Rickard, said they plan plantings and tree buffers to screen the building from view and to help preserve a wooded character along the property line.

A resident who identified herself as Atlanta Landrum raised unrelated concerns about sidewalks and street potholes while the case was being discussed; the board indicated that general public concerns not specific to the petition would be taken up separately.

The board approved the variances and adopted the petitioner's findings into the record via voice vote; the chair recorded the outcome as "Motion passed." No roll-call vote was transcribed. Staff noted usual permitting and building-code compliance would follow the variance approval.

The approved variances allow the petitioner to record the new lot and construct the barn as described, subject to standard permits and inspections.