Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Critical Area Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves after‑the‑fact Haney deck variance with conditions, orders size reduction and mitigation
Summary
The Board of Appeals granted an after‑the‑fact variance for a deck at 38810 Collinwood Drive (VAAP‑07‑2595) on Nov. 29, 2007, conditioning approval on reducing the deck from 37x25 ft (925 sq ft) to 37x15 ft (555 sq ft), adding gravel/mitigation under the structure and standard permit/demolition requirements; applicant to submit revised site plan.
The Board of Appeals on Nov. 29, 2007 approved an after‑the‑fact variance for a deck at 38810 Collinwood Drive (VAAP‑07‑2595) with conditions that reduce the deck’s footprint and require mitigation measures.
Thomas Haney, the property owner, told the Board he rebuilt a previously existing deck that had been removed after storm damage and that he had assumed a permit was not required for replacement of the earlier structure. The property is in the Critical Area (Resource Preservation District with Limited Development Area overlay) and a deck located within the 100‑foot tidal buffer is counted as impervious surface under county rules.
Staff and Critical Area reviewers recommended denial of a deck of the size constructed — recorded in the file as 925 square feet (approx. 37 feet wide by 25 feet deep) — because it did not meet the minimum-necessary and unwarranted-hardship variance standards for new impervious surface in the buffer. Following discussion, the Board approved a reduced deck size and mitigation: the Board’s motion approved the variance on condition that the deck be reduced to 37 feet by 15 feet (555 sq ft), that gravel or other accepted mitigation be placed under the deck to reduce runoff/impervious impacts, and that the applicant obtain the required demolition and building permits and complete mitigation within the time allowed by the Board’s order.
The Board discussed reasonable use of grandfathered structures in the buffer and staff advised a smaller deck (staff suggested 15x15 feet as a baseline for reasonable use) would be more consistent with county policy. The Board’s approval preserves the owner’s ability to enjoy an outdoor area while reducing impacts compared with the as-built deck and requiring mitigation for new impervious coverage.
The Board’s action includes standard follow-up: the applicant must revise and submit a corrected site plan showing the reduced deck and mitigation, secure required permits (including any demolition permit for the portion removed), and complete work within the period stated in the Board order. The Board noted orders will be prepared and signed by staff within 60 days; the 30‑day appeal period to the Circuit Court follows the signing.
