Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves variance allowing shed nearer property line at 650 East Park Avenue
Summary
The Greenwood Board of Zoning Appeals approved two variances for property at 650 East Park Avenue, allowing a second accessory shed on the lot and reducing the side-yard accessory setback from 5 feet to 2 feet, subject to two conditions.
The Greenwood Board of Zoning Appeals on Feb. 24 approved two variances for 650 East Park Avenue that will allow a second accessory shed on the lot and reduce the side-yard accessory setback from 5 feet to 2 feet.
Petitioner Gregory McCart told the board he sought the variances so he "could build a shed on my property." Staff and McCart asked that the petitioner's written statement of reasons and the staff report be entered into the record; the board admitted the documents and testimony and approved both requests by unanimous voice/hand votes.
The board's approval included two conditions read in the staff report: (1) the shed must be located as far east on the existing concrete pad as possible, and (2) the shed must meet any applicable building-code requirements related to a structure within 5 feet of a property line. Planning staff described the proposal as using an existing concrete pad and recommended approval with those conditions.
Board members asked few substantive questions during the public hearing; staff confirmed files were in order and that petitioner's materials were included in the packet. A motion to admit all evidence presented was made by Mr. Mullins and seconded by Mr. Millbar and passed 5-0. Mr. King moved to approve the setback reduction with the two conditions; Mr. Moll seconded. The vote on request No. 1 (reduce side-yard accessory setback from 5 feet to 2 feet) carried 5-0. The board then approved request No. 2 (allow a second accessory structure of the same type) with the same two conditions by a 5-0 vote.
After votes on the variances, the board directed corporation counsel to draft written findings of fact incorporating the staff report and the evidence submitted; that motion was approved 5-0. Staff told the petitioner that final legal action would be taken at a meeting in a couple of weeks and that he could work with staff to begin site work consistent with the conditions.
Ending: With written findings to be drafted by counsel, the petitioner may proceed with planning and code review while awaiting the board's final filed action.
