Oxford BZA approves two variances for 124 Pin Oak Drive to allow deck pergola and two-car garage

The Oxford Board of Zoning Appeals on June 24, 2025, voted to grant two variances for 124 Pin Oak Drive, approving a rear-yard setback reduction for a deck and pergola and a reduced side-yard setback to allow conversion of an existing carport into a two‑car garage.

The variances were granted after staff review under city zoning code section 11.39.02 and section 11.43.01(c)(2), and after applicants presented design drawings and a site survey showing proposed encroachments into the required setbacks.

Zach, staff member, told the board the application asked for two variances from section 11.43.01(c)(2): a rear-yard reduction from the 40-foot requirement and a side-yard reduction from the 10-foot requirement. He said the existing house sits 45.3 feet from the rear property line and that the proposed deck footprint would result in a rear setback of 31 feet 4 inches; the proposed garage would come to about 5 feet 6 inches from the side property line. Zach also walked the board through the decision criteria in section 11.39.02(c), noting mixed evidence on some criteria but concluding that the lot’s size and history supported the requests.

Scott Webb, the architect and agent for the applicants, described design choices and said the pergola with adjustable louvers would reduce solar heat gain on the house’s west-facing glass. "The sun is brutal in this house," Webb said, explaining the pergola choice and why other shading options were infeasible.

Applicant Alan Kiger said the changes were part of an "aging in place" plan. "For me, it's aging in place," Kiger said, describing plans to convert the house from three bedrooms to two and to provide a main-level layout suited to the owners’ future needs. Kiger said he chose the house because of its one‑story layout and mid‑century character and confirmed neighbors had been notified by the city; he said he personally discussed the project with neighbors but that no formal objections were filed.

Staff noted the subject lot is part of the Fairway subdivision recorded in 1955, with the house built in 1957 and later annexed into the city. Zach told the board the lot is about 13,000 square feet, smaller than the R‑1A district minimum of 15,000 square feet, and that many surrounding houses have rear additions with smaller setbacks. Staff applied the eight decision criteria in 11.39.02(c) and characterized several factors as supporting the variances (including the lot history and separation between primary structures) while rating some criteria as mixed evidence.

Board members asked whether granting a 5‑foot side‑yard setback would create a precedent. Several members emphasized that each variance must be evaluated on the specific facts of the case. One member said, "I take every case as an individual case," and the board recorded on the record that the decision is unique to these facts and should not be read as automatic precedent.

A motion to grant the rear-yard variance (deck/pergola) and a separate motion to grant the side-yard variance (two‑car garage) were each moved and seconded. When the board called roll on the motions, members present voted yes and the motions passed. The board recorded the vote as affirmative for both variances; the minutes note the board’s decision and the staff report findings as the basis for the approvals.

What this means going forward: with variances granted, the applicants can proceed with permitting for the approved elements consistent with the scope described to the board. A building permit for interior remodel work was previously issued; the variance approvals allow the exterior footprint changes contested under the zoning standards.