Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning appeal over 4,000 sq. ft. accessory building scheduled for public hearing
Summary
An applicant appealed a zoning board denial to seek permission for a 4,000 sq. ft. accessory metal building at 9995 Hickory Flat Highway; staff said the design variance was not required because the lot meets size and setback thresholds, and the case will be heard at the evening public hearing.
The Board of Commissioners was briefed Oct. 21 on an appeal (case 250846V) of a zoning board of appeals denial for an accessory structure at 9995 Hickory Flat Highway.
Thomas, a county planning staff presenter, said the applicant, Adam Westerby, is seeking approval for a 4,000‑square‑foot accessory workshop/storage building that exceeds the 50% maximum for accessory structures in the R‑20 zone. The zoning board of appeals denied the request on Aug. 14. Thomas said an earlier advertised design variance related to an all‑metal building was crossed out because under ordinance provisions a property of at least 5 acres with a structure sited at least 50 feet from property lines would not require the design variance.
Staff provided aerials and a site plan showing the existing house and the proposed building located roughly 80 feet from the property line; they also included photos the applicant furnished to show the building would be screened from the road. Commissioners asked about building design, visibility from adjacent Crabapple Falls properties and whether the proposed location would place the structure closer to neighbors than the house. Thomas said the design had not been submitted beyond the applicant’s statement that the structure would be metal and that fasteners would be screened. The case is scheduled for a public hearing at the board’s evening meeting.
Why it matters: The appeal raises typical zoning issues — accessory structure size limits, setback and screening — and neighbors’ visibility concerns. Planning staff flagged that the applicant had been denied by the zoning board of appeals and that the appeal will allow the full board to reconsider.
